Authors' comments on the State party's submissions

The authors' comments on the State party's submissions

The authors' comments on the State party's submissions

Authors' comments on State party's submissions on the merits

According to the State party, the authors own reindeer farms.

The authors' comments on the State party's observations and subsequent submissions

State party's observations on admissibility and the merits and authors' comments

5.4 The authors also reject the State party's observations on the merits.

On 4 March 2003, the authors comment on the State party's submission.

Observations of the State party concerning admissibility and comments of the authors

The State party apos s information and the authors apos comments thereon

The State party apos s observations and the authors apos comments thereon

5.2 Secondly, as to domestic remedies, the authors reject the State party's submissions.

The State party apos s admissibility observations and the authors apos comments thereon

5.1 In their comments, the authors challenge the State party apos s argument.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the authors.

5.1 By letter of 13 January 2004, the authors disputed the State party's observations.

The State party apos s information and observations and the authors apos comments thereon

3. The authors contend that the State party has violated article 18 of the Covenant.

The State party submitted that the authors could have taken defamation action against Mr. Sjolie.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and to the State party.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the authors.

5.1 By letter of 27 June 2004, the authors' responded disputing the State party's submissions.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the authors.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the authors.

(b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the authors.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the authors.

The Committee notes that the State party has not contested this part of the authors' account.

According to the authors, the State party's observations contradict Spanish domestic legislation and reflect a lack of good faith by the State party.

The State party apos s request for review of the admissibility decision and the authors apos reply

By letter of 15 October 2004, the authors filed additional observations on State party's latest submission.

8.7 The State party argues that the authors' claims under articles 26 and 27 are insufficiently substantiated.

5.1 In their comments of 4 August 2003, the authors contest the State party's observations on admissibility.

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and, for information, to the State party.

The authors.

5.1 On 28 August 2003 the authors transmitted to the Committee their comments on the State party's observations.

Some authors defend Bolívar's enactment, justifying that resources were provided to a State that was in a state of almost insolvency.

The authors note that the notion of State ownership of these areas has long been fought by Samis.

(c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, to the authors and to their counsel.

10.3 The authors and the State party disagree on the effects of the logging in the areas in question.

4.5 The State party contends that the authors are not victims for the purpose of article 14, paragraph 1.

Accordingly, the State party contends that the authors are not victims for the purpose of article 14, paragraph 1.

3.5 The authors further state that, in any event, they have already been personally affected by the alleged violations.

The KWrite authors

The KHTML authors