INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE SELECTED DECISIONS under THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (Second to sixteenth sessions) UNITED NATIONS New York, 1985 CCPR/C/OP/1 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE SELECTED DECISIONS under THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (Second to sixteenth sessions) UNITED NATIONS 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/l UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 01650P CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Interlocutory decisions prior to admissibility decision Second session No. 1/1976 Aetal.w.S 3 No. 4/1977 William Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay 3 Third session No. 4/1977 William Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay 4 No. 20/1977 M.A.v. S 5 No. 22/1977 O.E.v.S 5 Fourth session No. 10/1977 Alice and Victor Hugo Altesor V.Uruguay 6 No. 22/1977 O. E. v. S 6 Eleventh session No.73/1980 Ana Maria Teti Izquierdo v. Uruguay 7 Decisions declaring a communication admissible Sixth session No. 31/1978 Guillermo Waksman V. Uruguay 9 Seventh session No. 24/1977 Sandra Lovelace V. Canada 10 Decisions declaring a communication partly admissible Seventh session No. 29/1978 E. B.v.S 11 Ninth session No. 27/1978 Larry James Pinkney v. Canada 12 Decisions declaring a communication inadmissible Second session No. 13/1977 C. E. v. Canada 16 Third session No. 1 /1976 Aetal.\.S [partly inadmissible] 17 Fourth session No. 17/1977 Z. Z. V. Canada 19 No. 26/1978 N. S. v. Canada 19 Sixth session No. 15/1977 D. B. v. Canada 20 No. 20/1977 M.A.v. S 20 Seventh session No. 2/1976 L. P. V. Canada 21 No. 19/1977 C. J. V. Canada 23 No. 53/1979 K. B.V.Norway. 24 Ninth session No. 59/1979 K. L. V. Denmark 24 No. 60/1979 J. J.V.Denmark, 26 Tenth session No. 72/1980 K. L. v. Denmark 26 Page Twelfth session No. 68/1980 A. S.V.Canada 27 No. 81/1980 K.L.v. Denmark 28 Fourteenth session No. 91/1981 A. R. S. v. Canada 29 Fifteenth session No. 79/1980 S. S.V.Norway 30 Sixteenth session No. 121/1982 A. M. V. Denmark 32 Decisions to discontinue or suspend consideration Fifth session No. 21/1977 I.v.S....; 35 No. 22/1977 O.E.v.S 35 Eighth session No. 1/1976 Aetal.v.S 35 Ninth session No. 31 /1978 Guillermo Waksman v. Uruguay 36 Interlocutory decisions subsequent to admissibility decision Sixth session No. 5/1977 Moriana Hernández Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay 37 Tenth session No. 24/1977 Sandra Lovelace v. Canada 37 Eleventh session No. 29/1978 E.B.v. S 39 Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Seventh session No. 5/1977 Moriana Hernández Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay 40 Eighth session No. 9/1977 Edgardo Dante Santullo Valcada v. Uruguay 43 Ninth session No. 8/1977 Ana Maria Garcia Lanza de Netto, Beatriz Weismann and Alcides Lanza Perdomo v. Uruguay 45 Tenth session No.4/1977 William Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay 49 No. 6/1977 Miguel A. Millán Sequeira v. Uruguay 52 No.11/1977 Alberto Grille Motta v. Uruguay 54 Eleventh session No.28/1978 Luciano Weinberger Weisz v. Uruguay 57 Twelfth session No. 32/1978 Lucia Sala de Tourón v. Uruguay 61 No. 33/1978 Leopoldo Buffo Carballal v. Uruguay 63 No.34/1978 Jorge Landinelli Silva et al. v. Uruguay 65 No.35/1978 S. Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius 67 No.37/1978 Esther Soriano de Bouton v. Uruguay 72 No. 40/1978 Erkki Hartikainen v. Finland 74 Page No. 44/1979 Alba Pietroroia v. Uruguay 76 No. 58/1979 Anna Maroufidou v. Sweden 80 Thirteenth session No. 24/1977 Sandra Lovelace v. Canada 83 No. 52/1979 Delia Saldias de López v. Uruguay 88 No. 56/1979 Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay 92 Fourteenth session No. 27/1978 Larry James Pinkney v. Canada 95 No. 63/1979 Violeta Setelich v. Uruguay 101 Fifteenth session No. 10/1977 Alice and Victor Hugo Altesor v. Uruguay 105 No. 30/1978 Irene Bleier Lewenhoff and Rosa Valiño de Bleier v. Uruguay 109 No. 45/1979 Pedro Pablo Camargo v. Colombia 112 No. 50/1979 Gordon С. Van Duzen v. Canada 118 No. 57/1979 Sophie Vidal Martins v. Uruguay 122 No. 61/1979 Leo Hertzberg et al. v. Finland 124 No. 64/1979 Consuelo Salgar de Montejo v. Colombia 127 No. 70/1980 Eisa Cubas v. Uruguay 130 No. 73/1980 Ana María Teti Izquierdo v. Uruguay 132 Sixteenth session No. 25/1978 Carmen Améndola and Graciela Baritussio V.Uruguay 136 No. 46/1979 Orlanda Fais Borda et al. represented by Pedro Pablo Camargo v. Colombia 139 ANNEXES I. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocol... 147 II. Provisional rules of procedure for the consideration of communications received under the Optional Protocol 155 III. States parties to the Optional Protocol as at 31 December 1984 157 IV. Statistical Survey of status of communications as at 31 July 1982 158 Index by articles of the Covenant 159 Index by articles of the Optional Protocol 160 Subject index 161 INTRODUCTION 1. The International Covenant on Civil and (e) That the same matter is not being examined under Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto were another procedure of international investigation or adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966 settlement; and entered into force on 23 March 1976. (f) That the individual has exhausted all available 2. In accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, domestic remedies. the States parties established the Human Rights Com­ 5. From the time when the Committee started its mittee on 20 September 1976. work under the Optional Protocol at its second session 3. Under the Optional Protocol, individuals who in 1977 to its sixteenth session in 1982, inclusive, 124 claim that any of their rights set forth in the Covenant communications relating to alleged violations by 13 have been violated and who have exhausted all available States parties were placed before it for consideration. domestic remedies may submit written communications During that period 249 formal decisions were adopted, to the Human Rights Committee for consideration. Of as follows: the 80 States which have acceded to or ratified the (a) Decisions at pre-admissibility stages (mainly Covenant 34 have accepted the competence of the Com­ under rule 91 of the Committee's provisional rules of mittee to receive and consider individual complaints by procedure, requesting additional information or obser­ ratifying or acceding to the Optional Protocol.* These vations on questions relating to admissibility): 112; States are Barbados, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, the (b) Decisions declaring a communication inadmiss­ Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Costa ible, discontinued or suspended (relating to 39 com­ Rica, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, munications): 36; Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, (c) Decisions declaring a communication admiss­ Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Saint Vincent and ible: 54; the Grenadines, Senegal, Suriname, Sweden, Trinidad (d) Further interlocutory decisions after a com­ and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia. munication has been declared admissible (requesting ad­ No communication can be received by the Committee if ditional information or explanations from the parties): it concerns a State party to the Covenant which is not 16; also a party to the Optional Protocol. (e) Views under article 5 (4): 31. 4. Under the terms of the Optional Protocol, the 6. Although article 5 (3) of the Optional Protocol Committee may consider a communication only if cer­ provides that "the Committee shall hold closed tain conditions of admissibility are satisfied. These con­ meetings when examining communications under the ditions are set out in articles 1, 2, 3and 5 of the Op­ present Protocol", the Committee decided at its seventh tional Protocol and restated in rule 90 of the Commit­ session that the terms of the Protocol did not preclude tee's provisional rules of procedure, pursuant to which publication of its "views" adopted after consideration the Committee shall ascertain: of a communication, that publication was desirable in the interest of the most effective exercise of the Com­ (a) That the communication is not anonymous and mittee's functions under the Protocol, and that publica­ that it emanates from an individual, or individuals, sub­ tion in full was preferable to publication of a summary ject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Protocol; only. In the annual reports of the Human Rights Com­ (b) That the individual claims to be a victim of a mittee, beginning with the 1979 report and up to the violation by that State party of any of the rights set 1982 report, 31 final views, one decision on inadmissi­ forth in the Covenant. Normally, the communication bility and one decision to discontinue consideration should be submitted by the individual himself or by his have been pubhshed in full.' representative; the Committee may, however, accept to consider a communication submitted on behalf of an 7. At its fifteenth session the Committee decided, in alleged victim when it appears that he is unable to sub­ addition, to proceed with the periodical publication of a mit the communication himself; selection of its decisions under the Optional Protocol in a suitably edited form. The present volume covers deci­ (c) That the communication is not an abuse of the sions taken from the second to the sixteenth sessions, in­ right to submit a communication under the Protocol; clusive.