Which of the following actions could be taken to reverse the impact of the decision?

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-17/37.COM/7A, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7A.22 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Urges the State Party to pursue its efforts in implementing the recommendations of the 2011 reactive monitoring mission, and to prioritize the implementation of the following actions: a)  Develop baseline documentation, including missing architectural plans and topographic surveys, carry out a detailed conservation condition survey, b)  Undertake identified ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.   Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7A, 2.   Recalling Decision 36 COM 7A.26, adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.   Commends the progress made by the State Party on the implementation of the corrective measures and on capacity building; 4.   Takes note of the concerns expressed by the State Party on the critical condition of the large Western Buddha niche; 5.   Urges the State Party to: a)   finalise the Management Plan with an overall strategy of ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7C , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Regrets that the State Party did not keep the Committee fully informed about the Runkerry golf resort development prior to any decisions being taken that are difficult to reverse, in line with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines ; 4.  Reiterates its request to the State Party to halt the proposed golf resort development project until its potential impact on the Outstanding ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 31 COM 8B.54 , adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007), 3.  Expresses its grave concern regarding the Alembe-Mikouyi Road Development Project that could have an impact on the property, as well as the lack of information provided to the World Heritage Centre concerning the implementation of the main recommendations of Decision 31 COM 8B.54 , notably those regarding the establishment of a management authority, the approval of the law on the ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 20 COM 7D.64/65 , adopted at its 20th session (Merida, 1996), 3.  Expresses its concern over the Kuraz Sugar Cane Development Projects, which may have a negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Lower Valley of the Omo, if located within or near the property; 4.  Regrets that the State Party has not replied to the World Heritage Centre’s letters regarding its official position and clarification on the projects and their ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.43, adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Takes note of the documentation submitted by the State Party in regard to the Lamu Port – South Sudan – Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor and the new Lamu Port and Metropolis Development Project and also for the Management Plan for the property; 4.  Reiterates its deep concern about the likely negative impact of the LAPSSET corridor and the new Lamu Port and ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.48 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Acknowledges that archaeological advice will be provided to oversee the mitigation measures associated with the impact of open-cast coal mining on archaeological sites associated with the Mapungubwe Kingdom; 4.  Notes the progress made in establishing a buffer zone for the property that will cover land to the east of the boundary, and progress with the establishment of the ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.51 and 35 COM 7B.46 , adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively, 3.  Takes note of the progress made by the State Party in implementing the plan for the protection and enhancement of the property and its protected area; 4.  Also takes note of the State Party’s invitation of an advisory mission to the property and reiterates its request to submit to the World Heritage Centre an ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.47 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Takes note of the information provided by the State Party concerning measures taken to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and commend s its commitment for securing substantial funding for the urgently needed rehabilitation and conservation work on the urban fabric; 4.  Encourages the State Party to continue its efforts through the implementation of the ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.49 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party on the implementation of conservation and management measures to address existing conditions at the property; 4.  Urges the State Party to sustain on-going efforts, with particular attention to the following: a)  Finalize the delineation of the buffer zone and develop adequate regulatory measures to ensure its protection, ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.52 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Acknowledges the comprehensive information provided by the State Party on the implementation of actions to address pressing conservation and management concerns and urges it to continue with the systematic implementation of the 2012-2014 Action Plan; 4.  Takes note of the September 2012 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission and also urges that the ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.62 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Regrets that the State Party has not submitted a state of conservation report that addresses the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session; 4.  Notes the results of the May 2013 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property and encourages the State Party to implement its recommendations, with particular attention ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 8B.23 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Regrets that the State Party did not provide a state of conservation report as requested; 4.  Reiterates its requests to the State Party to urgently revise the Meydan-e Atiq project, in particular its north-western corner in the immediate vicinity of the Masjed-e Jāmé of Isfahan, in a way that will: a)  not foresee any structural connection between the new galleries and ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Takes note of the information provided by the State Party, in particular concerning the actions that have been taken to reduce the potential negative impact of the new mosque construction on the setting of the property; 3.  Requests the State Party to: a)  Submit detailed drawings of the latest mosque design, including the proposed exterior infrastructure, to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies, b)  Involve key stakeholders, including national ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B,  2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.66 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), 3.  Welcomes the State Party’s progress in finding an alternative route for the new Tilganga-Tamranganga tunnel and road; 4.  Encourages the State Party to submit details of alternative routes for the road to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies, at the earliest opportunity, preferably at the concept stage and before irreversible commitments are made; 5.  Notes the adoption of ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 7B.72 , 35 COM 7B.78 and 36 COM 7B.68, adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) sessions respectively, 3.  Regrets that the State Party has provided limited or no response to the decisions of the Committee and expresses its concern that no details have been given on the following: a)  the revised port development project and its Heritage Impact Assessment or of its proposed ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.82 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Notes the details of illegal buildings provided by the State Party for both Berat and Gjirokastra, and expresses its serious concern about its scale in Gjirokastra and the lack of progress in developing and implementing an Action Plan to deal with these violations; 4.  Also notes the lack of adequate legal tools that would stop illegal interventions, urges the State Party to approve and ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.84 adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Notes that a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property took place in September 2012 and requests the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission; 4.  Takes note of the information provided by the State Party on 31 May 2013 concerning the new project proposed in and around the Intercontinental Hotel, urges the State Party to provide the ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.83 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Notes the results of the April 2013 ICOMOS advisory mission to the property, invited by the State Party; 4.  Takes note of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the hydroelectric power plant Lehne and information provided by the State Party concerning a number of proposed new projects which may constitute negative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV); 5.  ...

The World Heritage Committee, 1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B, 2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.87 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011), 3.  Welcomes the progress made by the State Party in the implementation of its previous decisions and urges the State Party to adopt and implement the Management Plan; 4.  Takes note of the results of the November 2012 ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property and requests the State Party to implement its recommendations, in particular: a)  Approve effective legislative and ...

Which of the following can reverse a Supreme Court's decision?

Which of the following actions would the Senate take in their attempt to limit the Supreme Court's power?

Which of the following scenarios best illustrates the concept of a case being decided based on precedent?

What is a way Congress can influence the federal judiciary?