# Сборник текстов для перевода. Борисова Л.А. - 55 стр.

Составители:

Рубрика:

• ## Иностранный язык

55
two offenses are not a continuous event and are somewhat attenuated. More sig-
nificantly, the robbery in Cruz-Santiago "involved carjacking," which is an ag-
gravating factor under the robbery guideline. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5). In con-
trast, Austin's theft of the Jetta was not a "carjacking," nor did his bank robbery
involve the car theft in the same contemporaneous manner. We conclude that
Cruz-Santiago is distinguishable and does not control the case before us.
We need not address this issue because any error the district may have
committed in grouping Counts One, Four, and Five pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3D1.2 for the purpose of applying U.S.S.G. § 3D 1.3 would necessarily be
harmless. Austin's sentence was not altered by applying section 3D1.3 rather
than section 3D1.4 to determine the combined offense level. Pursuant to section
3D1.3, the district court imposed a combined offense level of 28, the offense
level pertaining to the robbery count, the highest offense level in the Group. Pur-
suant to section 3D 1.4, the combined offense level imposed would still have
been 28. This identical outcome persists even once the improper one-level en-
hancement pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(7) is subtracted. Under either provision,
Austin's combined offense level will be 27.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.
TEXT 33
The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public
hearing its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Ilascu and Others v.
Moldova and Russia. The Court held
- by sixteen votes to one, that the applicants came within the jurisdiction
of Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the European Convention on Hu-
man Rights…
The Court further held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to
take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the appli-
cants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release.
Decision of the Court
Article 1
As regards Moldova
On the basis of all the material in its possession, the Court considered that
the Moldovan Government, the only legitimate government of the Republic of
Moldova under international law, did not exercise authority over part of its terri-
tory, namely that part which was under the effective control of the “Moldovian
Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”). However, even in the absence of effective
control over the Transdniestrian region, Moldova still had a positive obligation
two offenses are not a continuous event and are somewhat attenuated. More sig-
nificantly, the robbery in Cruz-Santiago "involved carjacking," which is an ag-
gravating factor under the robbery guideline. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5). In con-
trast, Austin's theft of the Jetta was not a "carjacking," nor did his bank robbery
involve the car theft in the same contemporaneous manner. We conclude that
Cruz-Santiago is distinguishable and does not control the case before us.
We need not address this issue because any error the district may have
committed in grouping Counts One, Four, and Five pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3D1.2 for the purpose of applying U.S.S.G. § 3D 1.3 would necessarily be
harmless. Austin's sentence was not altered by applying section 3D1.3 rather
than section 3D1.4 to determine the combined offense level. Pursuant to section
3D1.3, the district court imposed a combined offense level of 28, the offense
level pertaining to the robbery count, the highest offense level in the Group. Pur-
suant to section 3D 1.4, the combined offense level imposed would still have
been 28. This identical outcome persists even once the improper one-level en-
hancement pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(7) is subtracted. Under either provision,
Austin's combined offense level will be 27.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.

TEXT 33

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public
hearing its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Ilascu and Others v.
Moldova and Russia. The Court held
- by sixteen votes to one, that the applicants came within the jurisdiction
of Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the European Convention on Hu-
man Rights
The Court further held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to
take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the appli-
cants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release.

Decision of the Court

Article 1
As regards Moldova
On the basis of all the material in its possession, the Court considered that
the Moldovan Government, the only legitimate government of the Republic of
Moldova under international law, did not exercise authority over part of its terri-
tory, namely that part which was under the effective control of the Moldovian
Republic of Transdniestria (MRT). However, even in the absence of effective
control over the Transdniestrian region, Moldova still had a positive obligation
55