Sentence examples for constitutes an interference from inspiring English sources

Cuba has rejected the Common Position, arguing that it constitutes an interference in its internal affairs.

This constitutes an interference channel with a cognitive relay (IFC-CR), which has been intensively studied from an information-theoretic perspective [7 15].

They will contend that the law of murder in England and Wales, which prohibits all intentional killing regardless of the victim's wishes, constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life under article 8 of the Convention.

In lower court deliberations, a judge cited a previously rejected "religious freedom" defense which claimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was invalid because it "contravenes the will of God," and constitutes an interference with the "free exercise of the Defendant's religion".

The three judges admitted that the stop constituted an interference with press freedom – but said this was trumped by national security concerns.

The cases cited by defendants in error, upholding state taxation as not constituting an interference with interstate commerce, are of little value to the inquiry here.

While the patrolling involved in picketing may in some cases constitute an interference with the use of public property greater than that produced by handbilling, it is clear that in other cases the converse may be true.

"Our investigation was not able to proceed, and we notified the parties that while we were able to conclude that Facebook's actions constituted an interference with privacy, and a failure to comply with its obligations both to the requester, and to my Office, there was nothing further we could do".

Many of the bank's lawyers, for example, argued that requiring governments that borrow from the bank to respect customary land rights would constitute an interference in their domestic political affairs.

He said the link was "an abuse of power by defendants and constitutes an unconstitutional interference upon the independence of the judiciary".

Appellants maintain that the measure constitutes an unreasonable interference with a purely private business and is not one for the regulation of the use of streets; that it attempts to convert appellants into public utilities and impose upon them liability without fault; and that it is discriminatory and oppressive.