71. Welcomes the fact that, with effect from 1 September 2009, the Internal Audit Service has been attached, for administrative purposes, to the Secretary-General; notes with satisfaction that this important change is in line with the professional standards on the organisational independence of the Internal Audit Service and it enhances both the effectiveness of the internal audit activity and the perception of its independent and ...[+++] objective role by the audited departments;

Importantly, the court refused to stay its decision, effectively removing the authority to convene courts martial, an essential step in bringing matters to trial.

15. Stresses that countries with huge export surpluses need to revive their internal economies and strengthen internal demand, and that coordinated policies at global level are needed to curb the heavy imbalances in the world economy; underlines that these imbalances are sources of the current crises; welcomes, therefore, the agreement of the G20 to reform the global architecture by rebalancing the world’s economy between debt-laden countries and export powerhouses; supports the idea that over‑consuming countries, such as the US, should rely more on saving and those countries hoarding big surpluses, such as China and Germany, should r ...[+++]ely more on developing their internal economies;

– having regard to its previous resolutions in support of Russian military journalist Grigory Pasko, who, in an earlier trial in 1999, was acquitted of espionage but found guilty on lesser charges; Mr Pasko appealed the verdict, but so did the prosecutors, insisting he was a spy; subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and ordered another trial,

– having regard to its previous resolutions in support of Russian military journalist Grigorii Pasko, who, in an earlier trial in 1999, was acquitted of espionage but found guilty on lesser charges; Mr Pasko appealed the verdict, but so did the prosecutors, insisting he was a spy; subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and ordered another trial,

24. It is submitted that once the Appellant established a potential threat to his liberty and the security of his person by the fact that he was charged with a criminal offence, and then established the operative principle of fundamental justice was the “harm principle”, and that a prima facie imbalance existed between the individual’s interests and the State’s interests in the application of that principle, then because of the very nature of the “harm principle” and the circumstances of the case ...[+++], the onus should have shifted to the Crown respondent to provide evidence of the significant harm that it relies upon to justify the use of criminal sanctions.