# Сборник текстов для перевода. Борисова Л.А. - 56 стр.

Составители:

Рубрика:

• ## Иностранный язык

56
under Article 1 of the Convention to take the measures that it was in its power to
take and were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants
the rights guaranteed by the Convention.
As regards Russia
During the Moldovan conflict in 1991-92 forces of the former Fourteenth
Army (which had owed allegiance to the USSR, the CIS and the Russian Fed-
eration in turn) stationed in Transdniestria, had fought with and on behalf of the
Transdniestrian separatist forces. Large quantities of weapons from the stores of
the Fourteenth Army had been voluntarily transferred to the separatists, who had
also been able to seize possession of other weapons unopposed by Russian sol-
diers. In addition, throughout the clashes between the Moldovan authorities and
authorities by their political declarations.
The Russian authorities had therefore contributed both military and politi-
cally to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria, part of
the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Even after the ceasefire agreement of
21 July 1992 Russia had continued to provide military, political and economic
support to the separatist regime, thus enabling it to survive by strengthening it-
self and by acquiring a certain amount of autonomy vis-à-vis Moldova. In the
Court’s opinion, all of the acts committed by Russian soldiers with regard to the
applicants, including their transfer into the charge of the separatist regime, in the
context of the Russian authorities’ collaboration with that illegal regime, were
capable of engaging responsibility for the consequences of the acts of that re-
gime…
That being so, the Court considered that there was a continuous and unin-
terrupted link of responsibility on the part of Russia for the applicants’ fate, as
its policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it had continued be-
yond 5 May 1998, and after that date Russia had made no attempt to put an end
to the applicants’ situation brought about by its agents and had not acted to pre-
vent the violations allegedly committed. The applicants therefore came within
the jurisdiction of Russia and its responsibility was engaged with regard of the
acts complained of.
TEXT 34
Constitution of the United States of America
Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Con-
gress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives.
under Article 1 of the Convention to take the measures that it was in its power to
take and were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants
the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

As regards Russia
During the Moldovan conflict in 1991-92 forces of the former Fourteenth
Army (which had owed allegiance to the USSR, the CIS and the Russian Fed-
eration in turn) stationed in Transdniestria, had fought with and on behalf of the
Transdniestrian separatist forces. Large quantities of weapons from the stores of
the Fourteenth Army had been voluntarily transferred to the separatists, who had
also been able to seize possession of other weapons unopposed by Russian sol-
diers. In addition, throughout the clashes between the Moldovan authorities and
authorities by their political declarations.
The Russian authorities had therefore contributed both military and politi-
cally to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria, part of
the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Even after the ceasefire agreement of
21 July 1992 Russia had continued to provide military, political and economic
support to the separatist regime, thus enabling it to survive by strengthening it-
self and by acquiring a certain amount of autonomy vis-à-vis Moldova. In the
Courts opinion, all of the acts committed by Russian soldiers with regard to the
applicants, including their transfer into the charge of the separatist regime, in the
context of the Russian authorities collaboration with that illegal regime, were
capable of engaging responsibility for the consequences of the acts of that re-
gime
That being so, the Court considered that there was a continuous and unin-
terrupted link of responsibility on the part of Russia for the applicants fate, as
its policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it had continued be-
yond 5 May 1998, and after that date Russia had made no attempt to put an end
to the applicants situation brought about by its agents and had not acted to pre-
vent the violations allegedly committed. The applicants therefore came within
the jurisdiction of Russia and its responsibility was engaged with regard of the
acts complained of.

TEXT 34

Constitution of the United States of America

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Con-
gress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives.

56