SELECTED DECISIONS of the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Under the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CCPR/C/OP/3 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE under THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL Volume 3 Thirty-third to thirty-ninth sessions (July 1988 - July 1990) UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2002 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. CCPR/C/OP/3 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.02.XIV.1 ISBN 92-1-154133-6 CONTENTS (Selected decisions²Thirty-third to thirty-ninth sessions) Page Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS A. Decisions transmitting a communication to the State party (rule 91) and requesting interim measures of protection (rule 86) ......................................... 5 No. 227/1987 O. W. v. J. ........................................................................ 5 No. 246/1987 N. A. J. v. J. ...................................................................... 6 2 B. Decisions to deal jointly with communications (rule 88) ............... 9 Nos. 324 and 325/1988 J. B. and H. K. v. F............................................................. 9 Nos. 343, 344, 345/1988 R. A. V. N. et al. v. A. ....................................................... 10 FINAL DECISIONS A. Reversal of decision on admissibility.............................................. 14 No. 164/1984 Croes v. The Netherlands ................................................... 14 B. Decisions declaring a communication inadmissible** ................... 19 No. 213/1986 [35] H. C. M. A. v. The Netherlands .......................................... 19 No. 220/1987* [37] a T. K. v. France ................................................................... 23 No. 224/1987 [33] A. & S. N. v. Norway ......................................................... 28 No. 236/1987 [33] V. M. R. B. v. Canada ........................................................ 30 No. 266/1987 [35] A. M. v. Italy ..................................................................... 34 No. 268/1987 [37] M. G. B. and S. P. v. Trinidad and Tobago ......................... 36 No. 273/1988 [35] B. d B. et. al. v. The Netherlands ........................................ 37 No. 275/1988 [38]a S. E. v. Argentina ............................................................... 41 No. 296/1988 [35] J. R. C. v. Costa Rica ......................................................... 44 No. 297/1988 [37] H. A. E. d. J. v. The Netherlands ........................................ 47 No. 300/1988* [35] J. H. v. Finland ................................................................... 50 No. 306/1988 [39] J. G. v. The Netherlands ..................................................... 51 3 No. 318/1988 [39] E. P. et al. v. Colombia ...................................................... 53 No. 329/1988 [38] D. F. v. Jamaica ................................................................. 56 No. 342/1988 [35] R. L. v. Canada .................................................................. 57 No. 360/1989* [36] Newspaper company v. Trinidad and Tobago ..................... 57 C. Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights***................ 59 No. 162/1983 [34] Omar Berterretche Acosta v. Uruguay ................................ 59 No. 167/1984 [38] c Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada ............................................ 62 No. 181/1984 [37] c Alfredo Ráfael and Samuel Humberto Sanjuan Arévalo v. Colombia ....................................................................... 79 __________ * Sample of a typical communication; the other case numbers, involving the same State party, are reflected in the body of the text. ** The number of the Committee's session is indicated in brackets. *** The Committee's views in every case incorporate the relevant paragraphs of the Committee's earlier decision on admissibility. Page No. 193/1985 [39] c Pierre Giry v. Dominican Republic ..................................... 83 No. 195/1985 [39] William Eduardo Delgado Páez v. Colombia ...................... 85 No. 196/1985 [35] Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France .......................................... 89 4 No. 197/1985 [33] b Ivan Kitok v. Sweden ......................................................... 93 No. 201/1985 [33] b, c Wim Hendriks v. The Netherlands ..................................... 98 No. 202/1986 [34] Graciela Ato del Avellanal v. Peru ..................................... 104 No. 203/1986 [34] c Ruben Toribio Muñoz Hermosa v. Peru.............................. 106 No. 207/1986 [36] b Yves Morael v. France ....................................................... 111 No. 208/1986 [37] b Karnel Singh Bhinder v. Canada ........................................ 118 No. 210/1986 & 225/1987 [35] Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v. Jamaica ............................... 121 No. 215/1986 [39] b G. A. van Meurs v. The Netherlands .................................. 126 No. 218/1986 [35] b, c Hendrika S. Vos v. The Netherlands ................................... 130 No. 219/1986 [39] b Dominique Guesdon v. France ........................................... 134 No. 223/1987 [35] Frank Robinson v. Jamaica ................................................. 139 No. 232/1987 [39] c Daniel Pinto v. Trinidad and Tobago .................................. 142 No. 238/1987 [36] Floresmilo Bolaños v. Ecuador ........................................... 146 No. 241, 242/1987 [37] F. Birindwa ci Birhashwirwa and E. Tshisekedi wa Mulumba v. Zaire .............................................................................. 148 No. 250/1987 [39] c Carlton Reid v. Jamaica ..................................................... 153 No. 265/1987 [35] Antti Vuolanne v. Finland .................................................. 159 No. 291/1988 [38] Mario Ines Torres v. Finland .............................................. 164 No. 295/1988 [39]b, c Aapo Järvinen v. Finland.................................................... 167 No. 305/1988 [39]c Hugo van Alphen v. The Netherlands ................................. 170 5 ANNEXES I. .......................... Statistical survey of status of communications as at 31 July 1990 177 II. Responses received from States parties after the adoption of views by the Human Rights Committee ................................................................................................... 178 INDEXES Index by articles of the Covenant............................................................................. 181 Index by articles of the Optional Protocol ................................................................ 183 Subject index .......................................................................................................... 184 Author and victim index ............................................................................................... 189 __________ a Pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure, the text(s) of an individual opinion is/are appended to the decision. All individual opinions are included, even in those cases where selections were deemed appropriate. b Disclose no violation. 6 c Pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure, the text(s) of an individual opinion is/are appended to the views (after amendment of the rules of procedure). INTRODUCTION 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto were adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. 2. In accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, the States parties established the Human Rights Committee on 20 September 1976. 3. Under the Optional Protocol, individuals who claim that any of their rights set forth in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit written communications to the Human Rights Committee for consideration. Of the 92 States that have acceded to or ratified the Covenant, 50 have accepted the competence of the Committee to receive and consider individual complaints by ratifying or acceding to the Optional Protocol.* No communication can be received by the Committee if it concerns a State party to the Covenant which is not also a party to the Optional Protocol. 4. Under the terms of the Optional Protocol, the Committee may consider a communication only if certain conditions of admissibility are satisfied. These conditions are set out in articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Optional Protocol and restated in rule 90 in the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, pursuant to which the Committee shall ascertain: (a) That the communication is not anonymous and that it emanates from an individual, or individuals, subject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Protocol; (b) That the individual claims to be a victim of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Normally, the communication should be submitted on behalf of an alleged victim when it appears that the victim is unable to submit the communication himself; (c) That the communication is not an abuse of the right to submit a communication under the Protocol; (d) That the communication is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant; 7 (e) That the same matter is not being examined under another