题目内容

听力原文： A delegation of American officials appeared before an international legal panel on Friday to argue that in its fight against terrorism, the United States had not violated its treaty obligations to prevent the torture of prisoners. It was the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, that a United States delegation had answered questions from an international body about abuses by soldiers and intelligence officers.
The delegation's report to the United Nations panel, which was meeting in Geneva, did not break new ground. The officials contended that despite instances of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the United States has not systematically mistreated prisoners and remained committed to a global ban on torture.
Under the Convention Against Torture, a 1987 treaty that is a centerpiece of international human rights law, the United States was supposed to have reported to the United Nations panel on its compliance by 1999.
The panel, known as the Committee Against Torture, will review the American report and issue findings later this month, but it has no power to enforce its conclusions.
The delegation included more than two dozen representatives from the State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security Departments, but not from the C.L.A.
A delegation of American officials appeared before an international legal panel on (36) to argue that in its fight (37) , the United States had not violated its treaty obligations to (38) the torture of prisoners.
It was the (39) since Sept. 11, 2001, that a United States delegation had answered questions from an (40) about abuses by soldiers and (41)
The delegation's report to the (42) panel, which was meeting in Geneva, did not break new ground. The officials contended that despite instances of (43) in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, (44) , the United States has not systematically mistreated (45) and remained (46) to a global ban on torture.
Under the Convention Against Torture, a (47) treaty that is a centerpiece of international (48) law, the United States was supposed to have (49) to the United Nations panel on its compliance by (50) .
The panel, known as the (51) , will review the American report and issue findings later this month, but it has (52) to enforce its conclusions.
The delegation included more than (53) representatives from the State, Defense, (54) and Homeland Security Departments, but not from the (55) .
(36)

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

案情：冯草(男，33岁)、冯韵(男，37岁)、冯信(男，32岁)系被继承人蔡显庭的亲生子。蔡显庭与妻子离异时，三原告均已成年，并均独立生活。1985年，蔡显庭认识被告于凤莲(女，28岁，时年16岁)，双方互有帮助。1987年蔡显庭、于风莲经单位同意办理收养手续，但双方未到公证处办理公证。1988年3月，蔡显庭与于凤莲订立了遗赠扶养协议。协议规定：从即日起，于风莲的一切生活费由蔡显庭承担；蔡显庭的生活由于风莲照顾；蔡显庭一旦去世，其全部遗产赠送给于凤莲。该遗赠扶养协议经过了公证。1989年，于凤莲以蔡显庭的养女身份，向公安机关户籍管理部门申请将其户口从新疆沙弯县迁至石河子市落在蔡的户下，得到了准迁。同年初冬，蔡显庭因患重病留下偏瘫后遗症，生活不能自理，完全由于凤莲照顾，直至蔡显庭于1996年4月去世。在蔡显庭生前，三原告有时去其住处看望，并给予一定的经济扶助；蔡显庭病逝，其后事主要由三原告操办。
被继承人蔡显庭的主要遗产是其于1993年12月以6000元出资在本单位取得52％产权的住宅楼房一套。三原告与被告为继承该房产权而发生争议，诉至石河子市人民法院。
原告冯草、冯韵、冯信诉称，要以第一顺序法定继承人的资格继承蔡显庭的房产，被告于凤莲不是其父亲的养女，不是法定继承人，无权继承遗产。
被告于风莲答辩称，自己不仅是被继承人蔡显庭的养女，而且还与蔡显庭订立了遗赠扶养协议，其遗留的财产应由其全部继承。
石河子市人民法院于1997年2月10日做出(1997)石民初字第X号民事判决，认定被告于凤莲与蔡显庭订立的遗赠扶养协议合法有效，其有权根据该协议接受蔡显庭的全部遗产，但认定二者之间不存在法律上的抚养关系。
被告于凤莲不服该判决对扶养关系的认定，向新疆生产建设兵团农八师中级人民法院提起上诉，委托中远律师事务所张少芬代写上诉状。
民事上诉状
上诉人：于凤莲，女，28岁，汉族，新疆沙弯县东湾乡人，无业，住新疆石河子市××街××号。
被上诉人：冯草，男，33岁，汉族，新疆石河子市人，工人，住石河子市××街××号。
上诉人因是否系被继承蔡显庭养女一案，不服石河子市人民法院1997年2月10日的一审判决，现提出上诉。
诉讼请求：依法认定上诉人于凤莲与被继承人蔡显庭的收养关系合法有效。
诉讼理由：原判认定我与被继承人蔡显庭间的收养关系不成立是错误的。关于收养程序，司法部、公安部规定：收养关系经过公证即正式成立；凡由公安部门批准收养人迁入户口的，也应视为收养成立。我于1989年，以蔡显庭养女的身份，向公安机关户籍管理部门申请并获准将户口从新疆沙弯县东湾乡迁至石河子市并落在蔡的户下，并且我与蔡显庭的收养关系也于1987年向蔡的单位提出过申请并经审查获得同意，以上单位均能证明我们以养父与养女的关系长期共同生活了多年，应认为收养关系成立。
鉴于以上事实和有关法律，特请求依法撤销原判，予以改判。
此致
石河子市人民政府
具状人：张少芬
1997年2月27日
附：本上诉状副本3份
请指明以下上诉状的错误并简要说明理由。

假设吴丙不知张甲和李乙的夫妻关系，张甲和李丙之间的买卖合同是否有效？房屋的产权归谁所有？

试析理性因素与非理性因素及其在认识过程中的作用。

16世纪时,丹麦天文学家第谷连续20年观测天体,并详细记录了行星在公转过程中位置的变化。开普勒仔细研究了第谷的观测资料,经过多年的刻苦计算,否定了19种假说,于1609年、1619年先后提出了太阳系行星运动的三大定律。后来,牛顿又在更广阔的范围内、更抽象的程度上进行思考和研究,于1687年正式公布了万有引力定律。到20世纪时,人们发现以牛顿运动定律为基础的经典力学只适用于解决宏观物体、低速运动问题。适应解决微观粒子和高速运动问题的需要,出现了相对论和量子力学。
请说明:人类对天体及其运行规律的探索过程,体现了哪些理论？