GERMANY

Follow-up - State Reporting

           i) Action by Treaty Bodies, Including Reports on Missions

CCPR A/59/40 vol. I (2004)

CHAPTER VII. FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

...

260. For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party’s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table. Of the 27 States parties (detailed below) that have been before the Committee under the follow-up procedure over the last year, only one (Republic of Moldova) has failed to provide information at the latest after dispatch of a reminder. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

261. The table below details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow-up responses provided to it, decided to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

CCPR, A/60/40 vol. I (2005)

CHAPTER VII. FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

...

233. For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party’s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the comprehensive table presented below. Since 18 June 2004, 15 States parties (Egypt, Germany, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Sweden, Togo and Venezuela) have submitted information to the Committee under the follow-up procedure. Since the follow-up procedure was instituted in March 2001, only six States parties (Colombia, Israel, Mali, Republic of Moldova, Sri Lanka and Suriname) have failed to supply follow-up information that had fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

224. The table below details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow-up responses provided to it, decided to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

Follow-up - State Reporting

           ii) Action by State Party

CCPR CCPR/CO/80/DEU/Add.1 (2005)

Comments by the Government of Germany to the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee

[5 January 2005]

Response by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to paragraph 23 first sentence of the concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the fifth periodic report of Germany under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights dated 30 March 2004 (CCPR/CO/80/DEU)

Paragraph 23 first sentence of the concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the fifth periodic report of Germany under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights dated 30 March 2004 (CCPR/CO/80/DEU) reads as follows:

"23. In accordance with article 70, paragraph 5, of the Committee's rules of procedure, the State party should provide, within one year, the relevant information on the implementation of the Committee's recommendations in paragraph 11."

Paragraph 11 of the concluding observations reads as follows:

"11. The Committee notes with concern that Germany has not yet taken a position regarding the applicability of the Covenant to persons subject to its jurisdiction in situations where its troops or police forces operate abroad, in particular in the context of peace missions. It reiterates that the applicability of the regime of international humanitarian law does not preclude accountability of States parties under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant for the actions of its agents outside their own territories.

The State party is encouraged to clarify its position and to provide training on relevant rights contained in the Covenant specifically designed for members of its security forces deployed internationally."

Statement by the Federal Government:

Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, Germany ensures the rights recognized in the Covenant to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.

Wherever its police or armed forces are deployed abroad, in particular when participating in peace missions, Germany ensures to all persons that they will be granted the rights recognized in the Covenant, insofar as they are subject to its jurisdiction.

Germany's international duties and obligations, in particular those assumed in fulfilment of obligations stemming from the Charter of the United Nations, remain unaffected.

The training it gives its security forces for international missions includes tailor-made instruction in the provisions of the Covenant.