429. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as at 26 July 1996 provides the following picture:

Madagascar: Four views finding violations; no follow-up reply received. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to be conducted during the fifty-eighth session.

524. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997 provides the following picture (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included):

Madagascar: Four Views finding violations: 49/1979 - Marais, 115/1982 - Wight, 132/1982 - Monja Jaona and 155/1983 - Eric Hammel (in Selected decisions, vol. 2). 13 / State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar were held during the fifty-ninth session (see para. 543 below).

Overview of follow-up replies received and of the Special Rapporteur's follow-up consultations during the reporting period

543. Madagascar: On 4 April 1997, the Special Rapporteur met with the Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations concerning the State party's failure to implement the Committee's recommendations in its Views, adopted on 3 April 1987, on communication No. 155/1983 (Eric Hammel). He explained the follow-up procedure and insisted that the State party take some form of remedial action to give effect to the Committee's Views, either by amending legislation, granting compensation to the author, or providing another remedy; he further urged that a follow-up reply be made available in time for the Committee's sixtieth session. The State party representative promised to convey the Special Rapporteur's concerns to the capital.

554. In spite of some progress in collecting follow-up information since the adoption of its 1996 Report, the Committee and the Special Rapporteur note with concern that a number of countries did not provide any follow-up information within the deadlines established by the Committee or have not replied to reminders or requests for information from the Special Rapporteur. Those States ____________

13/ [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol], (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.

which have not replied to requests for follow-up information are the following (in alphabetical order):

555. The Committee urges those States parties to reply to the Special Rapporteur's requests for follow-up information within the deadlines that have been set.

486. The Committee's previous report (A/52/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997. 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 previous report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work were considerably reduced in the current year, preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Madagascar: Four Views finding violations: 49/1979 -Marais, 115/1982 - Wight, 132/1982 -Monja Jaona and 155/1983 - Eric Hammel (in Selected decisions, vol. 2).3/ State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar were held during the fifty-ninth session (see 1997 Report (A/52/40), para. 543).

510. The Committee again expresses its regret that its recommendations, formulated in its 1995, 1996 and 1997 Reports, to the effect that at least one follow-up mission per year be budgeted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have still not been implemented. Similarly, the Committee considers that staff resources to service the follow-up mandate remain inadequate, despite the Committee’s repeated requests, and that this prevents the proper and timely conduct of follow-up activities, including follow-up missions. In this context, the Committee expresses serious concern that, because of the lack of staff, no follow-up consultations could be organized during its sixty-second session or at its sixty-third session. It is for this reason that the Committee is unable to include in the present report a complete list of States which have failed to cooperate under the follow-up procedure. States listed in the previous year’s report for which replies are still outstanding are: ... Madagascar...

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.

Madagascar: Four Views finding violations: 49/1979 - Marais; 115/1982 - Wight; 132/1982 - Jaona; and 155/1983-Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2). State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.

Madagascar: Four Views finding violations: 49/1979 - Marais; 115/1982 - Wight; 132/1982 - Jaona; and 155/1983 - Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2). The State party’s follow-up reply remains outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.

Madagascar: Four Views finding violations: 49/1979 - Marais; 115/1982 - Wight; 132/1982 - Jaona; and 155/1983 - Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); follow-up replies remain outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.

155/1983 - Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); follow-up replies remain outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.^*

155/1983 - Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); follow-up replies remain outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention.

Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.^*

Madagascar:	Views in four cases with findings of violations:
	49/1979 - Marais;
	115/1982 - Wight;
	132/1982 - Jaona;
	155/1983 - Hammel (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); follow-up replies remain outstanding in all four cases; the authors of the two first cases informed the Committee that they were released from detention;
	Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Madagascar to the United Nations were held during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 543).

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.

2. Mr. Ando, speaking as Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views under the Optional Protocol, presented the Follow-up Progress Report (CCPR/C/83/FU1 and FU2), which updated the Committee’s previous annual report (CCPR/C/81/CRP.1/Add.6) on follow-up activities and included information received between the eighty-first and eighty-third sessions. It dealt with 20 different States parties and covered 18 cases...

3. ... With respect to cases Nos. 49/1979, 115/1982, 132/1982 and 155/1983 involving Madagascar, that country’s representative had assured him, following a meeting he had had with her during the eighty-second session, that she would relay the request for information to her capital. No reply had been received to date...

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
...
Madagascar (4)	49/1979, Marais Eighteenth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to A/52/40, the author indicated that he was released. No further information was provided.
	115/1982, Wight Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to A/52/40, the author indicated that he was released. No further information was provided.
	132/1982, Jaona Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
	155/1983, Hammel A/42/40 and Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	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	MADAGASCAR
Cases	Marais, 49/1979; Wight, 115/1982; Joana 132/1982; Hammel 155/1983.
Views adopted on	29 October 1981; 1 April 1984; 1 April 1985; and 3 April 1987, respectively.
Issues and violations found	1. Poor prison conditions and no access to counsel - article 7, 10 paragraph 1, 14, paragraph 3 (b), (d). 2. Poor prison conditions and no access to counsel - article 7, 10, paragraph 1, 1, paragraph 3 (b). 3. Arrest and detention on account of his political opinions; failure to inform of the reasons for his arrest; persecution on account of his political opinions - articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 and 19, paragraph 2. 4. Unable to take proceedings before a court to determine the lawfulness of his arrest; not allowed to submit the reasons for his expulsion - articles 9, paragraph 4, and 13.
Remedy recommended	1. An effective remedy for the violations which he has suffered and a decision by the State party to release Mr. Marais, prior to completion of his sentence, in response to his petition for clemency. 2. Take effective measures. 3. To take effective measures to remedy the violations which Monja Jaona has suffered, to grant him compensation under article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, on account of his arbitrary arrest and detention. 4. Take effective measures.
Due date for State party response	29 February 1982; 1 August 1985; 1 August 1985; and 3 August 1987, respectively.
State party response	None
Further action taken/required	During the eighty-second session, on 28 October 2004, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party, who confirmed that she would relay the request for information in relation to these cases to her capital and request a written response to the Committee’s Views. No response has been forthcoming.

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
...
Madagascar (4)	49/1979, Marais Eighteenth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he was released. No further information provided.
	115/1982, Wight Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he was released. No further information provided.
	132/1982, Jaona Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
	155/1983, Hammel A/42/40 and Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	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
...
Madagascar (4)	49/1979, Marais Eighteenth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he was released. No further information provided.
	115/1982, Wight Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he was released. No further information provided.
	132/1982, Jaona Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
	155/1983, Hammel A/42/40 and Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
...

187. 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).

188. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information had 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.

189. 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 relate only 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.

190. 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 recommendations.

191. 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.

192. 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 2008, 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.

193. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/62/40) 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 relevant Committee report	Follow-up response received from State party	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Madagascar (4)	49/1979, Marais Eighteenth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he had been released. No further information provided.
	115/1982, Wight Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: According to the Annual Report (A/52/40), the author indicated that he had been released. No further information provided.
	132/1982, Jaona Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
	155/1983, Hammel A/42/40 Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
...

230. 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 on Views to this effect. Ms. Ruth Wedgwood has been the Special Rapporteur since July 2009 (ninety-sixth session).

231. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information had been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 543 Views out of the 681 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

232. 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 relate only 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.

233. 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 recommendations.

234. 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.

235. 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 the ninety-sixth session (13-31 July 2009), 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 on Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

236. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/63/40) is set out in annex IX to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and relevant Committee report	Follow-up response received from State party	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Madagascar (4)	49/1979, Marais Eighteenth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	115/1982, Wight Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X*	X
	*Note: The author indicated that he had been released (see A/52/40). No further information provided.
	132/1982, Jaona Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
	155/1983, Hammel A/42/40 Selected Decisions, vol. 2	A/52/40			X	X
...