SELECTED DECISIONS of the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Under the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE under THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL Volume 7 Sixty-sixth to seventy-fourth sessions (July 1999 – March 2002) UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2006 NOTE Material contained in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided credit is given and a copy of the publication containing the reprinted material is sent to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, 8-14 avenue de la Paix, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. CCPR/C/OP/7 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.06.XIV.1 ISBN 92-1-130294-3 ii CONTENTS (Selected decisions — Sixty-sixth to seventy-fourth sessions) Page Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 FINAL DECISIONS A. Decision declaring a communication admissible (the number of the Committee session is indicated in brackets) No. 845/1999 [67] Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago............................. 5 B. Decisions declaring a communication inadmissible (the number of the Committee session is indicated in brackets) No. 717/1996 [66] Acuña Inostroza et al v. Chile.............................................. 13 No. 880/1999 [74] Terry Irving v. Australia...................................................... 18 No. 925/2000 [73] Wan Kuok Koi v. Portugal .................................................. 22 C. Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol No. 580/1994 [74] Glen Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago ................................... 29 No. 688/1996 [69] María Sybila Arredondo v. Peru.......................................... 36 No. 701/1996 [69] Cesario Gómez Vázquez v. Spain........................................ 43 No. 727/1996 [71] Dobroslav Paraga v. Croatia ................................................ 48 No. 736/1997 [70] Malcolm Ross v. Canada ..................................................... 54 No. 747/1997 [73] Karel Des Fours Walderode and Johanna Kammerlander v. The Czech Republic......................................................... 65 No. 760/1997 [69] J. G. A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia ................................... 69 No. 765/1997 [73] Eliska Fábryová v. Czech Republic..................................... 79 No. 770/1997 [69] Dimitry L. Gridin v. Russian Federation ............................. 82 No. 774/1997 [73] Robert Brok and Dagmar Brokova v. Czech Republic........ 85 No. 779/1997 [73] Anni Äärelä and Jouni Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland .................. 90 No. 788/1997 [73] Geniuval M. Cagas, Wilson Butin and Julio Astillero v. Philippines ........................................................ 98 No. 806/1998 [70] Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent & the Grenadines ......... 102 No. 818/1998 [72] Sandy Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago................................. 111 No. 819/1998 [71] Joseph Kavanagh v. Ireland................................................. 117 Nos. 839, 840 [72] Anthony B. Mansaraj et al., Gborie Tamba et al. and and 841/1998 Abdul Karim Sesay et al v. Sierra Leone............................. 125 No. 845/1998 [74] Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago............................. 127 No. 869/1999 [70] Mr. Dante Piandiong, Mr. Jesus Morallos and Mr. Archie Bulan v. The Philippines...................................................... 133 No. 884/1999 [72] Ms. Antonina Ignatane v. Latvia ......................................... 137 No. 919/2000 [74] Michael Andreas Müller and Imke Engelhard v. Namibia.. 142 No. 930/2000 [72] Hendrick Winata, So Lan Li and Barry Winata v. Australia 147 No. 965/2000 [74] Mümtaz Karakurt v. Austria ................................................ 155 iii ANNEX Page Responses received from States parties after the adoption of views by the Human Rights Committee....................................................................................................... 161 INDEXES Index by articles of the Covenant............................................................................................ 165 Index by articles of the Optional Protocol .............................................................................. 167 Subject index........................................................................................................................... 169 Author and victim index ......................................................................................................... 173 iv INTRODUCTION 1. The International Covenant on Civil and (e) That the same matter is not being Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto examined under another procedure of international were adopted by the General Assembly on investigation or settlement; 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. (f) That the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 2. In accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, 5. Under rule 92 (old rule 86) of its rules of the States parties established the Human Rights procedure, the Committee may, prior to the Committee on 20 September 1976. forwarding of its final Views on a communication, 3. Under the Optional Protocol, individuals who inform the State party of whether “interim measures” claim that any of their rights set forth in the of protection are desirable to avoid irreparable Covenant have been violated and who have damage to the victim of the alleged violation. The exhausted all available domestic remedies may request for interim measures, however, does not submit a written communication to the Human imply the determination of the merits of the Rights Committee for consideration. No communication. The Committee has requested such communication can be received by the Committee if interim measures in a number of cases, for example it concerns a State party to the Covenant that is not where the carrying out of a death sentence or the also a party to the Optional Protocol. As of expulsion or extradition of a person appeared to be 31 March 2002, 102 of the 149 States that had imminent. Pursuant to rule 94 (2), the Committee acceded to or ratified the Covenant had accepted the may deal jointly with two or more communications, competence of the Committee to receive and if deemed appropriate. consider individual complaints by ratifying or 6. With respect to the question of burden of acceding to the Optional Protocol. proof, the Committee has established that such 4. Under the terms of the Optional Protocol, the burden cannot rest alone on the author of a Committee may consider a communication only if communication, especially in view of the fact that certain conditions of admissibility are satisfied. the author and the State party do not always have These conditions are set out in articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 equal access to the evidence and that the State party of the Optional Protocol and restated in rule 96 of frequently has sole possession of the relevant the Committee’s rules of procedure information. It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the (CCPR/C/3/Rev.7), pursuant to which the Optional Protocol that the State party has a duty to Committee shall ascertain: investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its authorities. (a) That the communication is not 7. The Committee started work under the anonymous and that it emanates from an individual, Optional Protocol at its second session in 1977. or individuals, subject to the jurisdiction of a State From then until its seventy-fourth session in party to the Protocol; March 2002, 1069 communications relating to (b) That the individual claims, in a alleged violations by 69 States parties were placed manner sufficiently substantiated, to be a victim of a before it for consideration. By the end of violation by that State party of any of the rights set March 2002, the status of these communications was forth in the Covenant. Normally, the communication as follows: should be submitted by the individual himself or by his representative; a communication submitted on (a) Concluded by adoption of Views behalf of an alleged victim may, however, be under article 5 (4) of the Optional accepted when it appears that he is unable to submit Protocol ............................................... 394 the communication himself; (b) Declared inadmissible ......................... 306 (c) That the communication is not an abuse (c) Discontinued or withdrawn ................. 143 of the right to submit a communication under the Protocol; (d) Declared admissible but not yet concluded ............................................ 26 (d) That the communication is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant; (e) Pending at pre-admissibility stage ...... 200 1 8. In its first twenty-five years, the Committee nature. Volume 1 of this series, covering decisions received many more than the 1069 registered taken from the second to the sixteenth session communications mentioned above. The Secretariat inclusive, was published in 1985 in English.2 regularly receives inquiries from individuals who Volume 2 covers decisions taken from the intend to submit a communication to the Committee. seventeenth to the thirty-second session and includes Such inquiries are not immediately registered as all decisions declaring communications admissible, cases. In fact, the number of authors who eventually two interim decisions requesting additional submit cases for consideration by the Committee