461. The Committee's previous report (A/53/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1998. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included). It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work have been considerably reduced preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Guyana: One decision finding violations: 676/1996 -Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received.

596. The Committee’s previous report (A/54/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1999. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States. (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included.) It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the limited resources available for the Committee’s work prevent it from undertaking a comprehensive or systematic follow-up programme.

Guyana: One decision finding violations: 676/1996 - Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received.

180. The Committee’s previous annual report (A/55/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey on follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2000. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not take into account the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-second session, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

Guyana: Views in one case finding violations: 676/1996 - Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received. In several letters, the last dated 23 August 1998, the authors’ legal representative expresses concern that the Legal Affairs Minister of Guyana has recommended to his Government not to comply with the Committee’s decision. In a letter dated 14 June 2000, the father of Yasseen informs the Committee that its recommendations have not been fulfilled so far. In a letter dated 6 November 2000, the same information is provided by Interights, the authors’ legal representative.

228. The previous annual report of the Committee (A/56/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2001. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

676/1996 - Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received. In several letters, the last dated 23 August 1998, the authors’ legal representative expresses concern that the Legal Affairs Minister of Guyana has recommended to his Government not to comply with the Committee’s decision. In a letter dated 14 June 2000, the father of Yasseen informs the Committee that its recommendations have not been fulfilled so far. In a letter dated 6 November 2000, the same information is provided by Interights, the authors’ legal representative;

229. For further information on the status of all the Views in which follow-up information remains outstanding or in respect of which follow-up consultations have been or will be scheduled, reference is made to the follow-up progress report prepared for the seventy-fourth session of the Committee (CCPR/C/74/R.7/Rev.1, dated 28 March 2002), discussed in public session at the Committee’s 2009th meeting on 4 April 2002 (CCPR/C/SR.2009). Reference is also made to the Committee’s previous reports, in particular A/56/40, paragraphs 182 to 200.

223. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2002. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-seventh and seventy-eighth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

676/1996 - Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received. In several letters, the last dated 23 August 1998, the authors’ legal representative expresses concern that the Legal Affairs Minister of Guyana had recommended to his Government not to comply with the Committee’s decision. In a letter dated 14 June 2000, the father of Yasseen informed the Committee that its recommendations had not been fulfilled. In a letter dated 6 November 2000, the same information is provided by the authors’ legal representative;

1. [Official Records of the General Assembly], Fifty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40(A/57/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[Session No.] /40 refers to the Official Record of the General Assembly

230. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2003. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the eightieth and eighty-first sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

Guyana:	Views in five cases with findings of violations:
	676/1996 - Yasseen and Thomas (A/53/40); no follow-up reply received. In several letters, the last dated 23 August 1998, the authors’ legal representative expresses concern that the Legal Affairs Minister of Guyana had recommended to his Government not to comply with the Committee’s decision. In a letter dated 14 June 2000, the father of Yasseen informed the Committee that its recommendations had not been fulfilled. In a letter dated 6 November 2000, the same information is provided by the authors’ legal representative;
	728/1996 - Sahadeo (A/57/40); no follow-up reply received;
	838/1998 - Hendriks (A/58/40); no follow-up reply received;
	811/1998 - Mulai (annex IX); follow-up reply not yet due;
	867/1999 - Smartt (annex IX); follow-up reply not yet due.

1/ Ibid., Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[session No.]/40 refers to the Official Records of the General Assembly in which the case appears; annex IX refers to the present report, volume II.

224. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for the follow-up on Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

225. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights. A total of 391 Views out of the 503 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

228. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party has in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party did not itself provide that information.

229. The present annual report adopts a different format for the presentation of follow-up information compared to previous annual reports. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received as of 28 July 2005, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of complying with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

230. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives since the last annual report is set out in a new annex VII, contained in Volume II of the present annual report. This, more detailed, follow-up information also indicates action still outstanding in those cases that remain under review.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location^a	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Guyana (6)	676/1996, Yasseen and Thomas A/53/40				X A/60/40	X
	728/1996, Sahadeo A/57/40				X A/60/40	X
	838/1998, Hendriks A/58/40				X A/60/40	X
	811/1998, Mulai A/59/40				X A/60/40	X
	867/1999, Smartt A/59/40				X A/60/40	X
	912/2000, Ganga A/60/40				X A/60/40	X

^a The location refers to the document symbol of the Official Records of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 40, which is the annual report of the Committee to the respective sessions of the Assembly.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/59/40).

State party	GUYANA
Cases	(1) Yasseem and Thomas, 676/1996; (2) Sahadeo, 728/1996; (3) Mulai, 811/1998; (4) Hendriks, 838/1998; and (5) Smartt, 867/1999.
Views adopted on	(1) 30 March 1998; (2) 1 November 2002; (3) 20 July 2004; (4) 28 October 2002; (5) 6 July 2004
Issues and violations found	1. Death penalty case. Unfair trial, inhuman or degrading treatment resulting in forced confessions, conditions of detention - articles 10 paragraph 1, 14, paragraph 3 (b), (c), (e), in respect of both authors; 14, paragraph 3 (b), (d) in respect of Mr. Yasseen. 2. Prolonged pretrial detention - articles 9, paragraph 3, 14, paragraph 3 (c). 3. Death penalty after unfair trial - articles 6 and 14, paragraph 1. 4. Death penalty following unfair trial and mistreatment - articles 9, paragraph 3 and 14, paragraph 3 (c), (d) and (e) and consequently of 6. 5. Death penalty after unfair trial - articles 6, and 14, paragraph 3 (d)

Remedy recommended	1. Under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, Messrs. Abdool S. Yasseen and Noel Thomas are entitled to an effective remedy. The Committee considers that in the circumstances of their case, this should entail their release. 2. The Committee is of the view that Mr. Sahadeo is entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), to an effective remedy, in view of the prolonged pretrial detention in violation of article 9, paragraph 3, and the delay in the subsequent trial, in violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), entailing a commutation of the sentence of death and compensation under article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. 3. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Bharatraj and Lallman Mulai with an effective remedy, including commutation of their death sentences. 4. Effective remedy including commutation of sentence. 5. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the author’s son is entitled to an effective remedy, including the commutation of his death sentence.
Due date for State party response	(1) 3 September 1998; (2) 21 March 2002; (3) 1 November 2004; (4) 10 March 2003; (5) 10 October 2004
State party response	No reply to any of these Views.
Further action taken/required	Action taken: During the eighty-third session (29 March 2005) the Rapporteur met with the Deputy Permanent Representative of Guyana to the United Nations. The Rapporteur explained his mandate and provided the representative with copies of the Views adopted by the Committee in the following communications: 676/1996 (Yasseem and Thomas), 728/1996 (Sahadeo), 838/1998 (Hendriks), 811/1998 (Mulai) and 867/1999 (Smartt). The Views were also sent to the Permanent Mission of Guyana by e-mail to facilitate their transmittal to the capital. The Rapporteur expressed concern about the lack of information received from the State party regarding the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations on these cases. The representative gave the Rapporteur assurances that he would inform his authorities in the capital about the Rapporteur’s concerns.
Author’s response	With regard to communication No. 811/1998 (Mulai), the lawyer informed the Committee by letter dated 6 June 2005 that no measures had been taken by the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendation.

227. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

228. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 429 Views out of the 547 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

229. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

230. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

231. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

232. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2006, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

233. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/60/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Guyana (9)	676/1996, Yasseen andThomas A/53/40				X A/60/40	X
	728/1996, Sahadeo A/57/40				X A/60/40	X
	838/1998, Hendriks A/58/40				X A/60/40	X
	811/1998, Mulai A/59/40				X A/60/40	X
	812/1998, Persaud A/61/40				X	X
	862/1999, Hussain and Hussain A/61/40				X	X
	867/1999, Smartt A/59/40				X A/60/40	X
	912/2000, Ganga A/60/40				X A/60/40	X
	913/2000, Chan A/61/40				X
...

213. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

214. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 452 Views out of the 570 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

215. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

216. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

217. In many cases, the Committee secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

218. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2007, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

219. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/61/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Guyana (9)	676/1996, Yasseen and Thomas A/53/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	728/1996, Sahadeo A/57/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	838/1998, Hendriks A/58/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	811/1998, Mulai A/59/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	812/1998, Persaud A/61/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X	X
	862/1999, Hussain and Hussain A/61/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X	X
	867/1999, Smartt A/59/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	912/2000, Ganga A/60/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X A/60/40	X
	913/2000, Chan A/61/40	A/60/40* A/62/40			X
* Although the State party has not responded, there have been several meetings between the State party and the Rapporteur.
...

FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON STATE REPORTS AND TO VIEWS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (agenda item 7)

Report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views (CCPR/C/90/R.4, distributed in the meeting room in English only)

7. Mr. SHEARER (Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views) said that the report covered communications for which the Committee had received information between its eighty ninth session (12-30 March 2007) and its ninetieth session (9-27 July 2007)...

12. With regard to the Yassen & Thomas v. Guyana case (communication No. 676/1996), according to information received from the authors' lawyers, Mr. Yassen had died of natural causes in prison, and Mr. Thomas was still on death row. In the light of the difficulties the Committee had faced in obtaining information from Guyanese authorities, he suggested arranging a meeting with representatives of the State party, either in Geneva during the Committee's October 2007 session, or, if Guyana did not have permanent representation in Geneva, in New York during its March 2008 session.

19. The CHAIRPERSON thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report on a very important aspect of the Committee's work. If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Committee wished to adopt the report.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/61/40).