Follow-up: Jurisprudence - CCPR

CCPR A/52/40, vol. I (1997)

VIII. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

...

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):

...

Netherlands: Four Views finding violations: 172/1984 ‑ Broeks (1987 Report);18/ State party's follow‑up report, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished; 182/1984 ‑Zwaan de Vries (1987 Report); 18/ State party's follow‑up reply was not published; 305/1988 ‑van Alphen (1990 Report);14/ for State party's follow‑up reply dated 15 May 1991, see 1991 Report,19/ paras. 707 and 708; 453/1991 ‑ Coeriel & Aurick (1995 Report);16/ State party's follow‑up reply dated 28 March 1995, unpublished.

__________

14/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40).

16/ Ibid., Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40).

18/ Ibid., Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/40).

19/ Ibid., Forty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/46/40).

CCPR A/55/40, vol. I (2000)

VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

...

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.

...

Netherlands: Five Views finding violations: 172/1984 - Broeks (A/42/40); the State party=s follow-up reply, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished; 182/1984 - Zwaan-de Vries (A/42/40); State party=s follow-up reply, unpublished; 305/1988 - van Alphen (A/45/40); for the State party=s follow-up reply, see A/46/40; paras. 707 and 708; 453/1991 - Coeriel (A/50/40); the State party=s follow-up reply, dated 28 March 1995, unpublished; 786/1997 - Vos (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see below.

...

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

...

Netherlands. By submission of 25 October 1999 concerning case No. 786/1997 - Vos, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee that it had published the Committee=s Views in the Gazette. However, at the same time it challenged the Committee=s Views that the author had been a victim of discrimination and informed the Committee that it would not implement its recommendation. After having received the Government=s reply, the Committee decided to organize a meeting with the State party=s representative. The meeting has not yet taken place.

CCPR A/56/40, vol. I (2001)

Chapter IV. Follow-up Activities under the Optional Protocol

...

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.

...

Netherlands: Six Views finding violations: 172/1984 - Broeks (A/42/40); follow-up reply, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished; 182/1984 - Zwaan-de Vries (A/42/40); follow-up reply, unpublished; 305/1988 - van Alphen (A/45/40); for follow-up reply, see A/46/40, paragraphs 707 and 708; 453/1991 - Coeriel (A/50/40); follow-up reply, dated 28 March 1995, unpublished; 786/1997 - Vos (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 612; 846/1999 - Jansen-Gielen (annex X, sect. N); deadline for follow-up reply not yet expired.

...

Overview of follow-up replies received during the reporting period, Special Rapporteur=s follow-up consultations and other developments

...

191. Netherlands: By submission of 25 October 1999 concerning case No. 786/1997 - Vos, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee that it had published the Committee=s Views in the Official Gazette. However, at the same time it challenged the Committee=s Views that the author had been a victim of discrimination and informed the Committee that it would not implement its recommendation. By note verbale, dated 9 November 2000, the State party informed the Committee that it was prepared to provide the author with compensation. However, the State party still challenges the Committee=s Views. In a letter dated 12 November 1999 the author criticized the State party=s response and asked for assistance. The Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the Netherlands during the seventieth session of the Committee, on 19 October 2000. By note verbale dated 9 November 2000, the State party informed the Committee that it was granting compensation to the author for his costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Committee.

CCPR A/57/40, vol. I (2002)

Chapter VI. Follow-up activities under the optional protocol

...

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.

...

Netherlands: Views in six cases with findings of violations:

172/1984 - Broeks (A/42/40); follow-up reply, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished;

182/1984 - Zwaan-de Vries (A/42/40); follow-up reply, unpublished;

305/1988 - van Alphen (A/45/40); for follow-up reply, see A/46/40, paragraphs 707 and 708;

453/1991 - Coeriel (A/50/40); follow-up reply, dated 28 March 1995, unpublished;

786/1997 - Vos (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 612;

846/1999 - Jansen-Gielen (A/56/40); for follow-up reply, see paragraph [245] below.

...

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.

Overview of follow-up replies received during the reporting period, Special Rapporteur=s follow-up consultations and other developments

CCPR A/58/40, vol. I (2003)

CHAPTER VI. Follow-up activities under the Optional Protocol

...

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.^*

...

Netherlands: Views in six cases with findings of violations:

172/1984 - Broeks (A/42/40); follow-up reply, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished;

182/1984 - Zwaan-de Vries (A/42/40); follow-up reply, unpublished;

305/1988 - van Alphen (A/45/40); for follow-up reply, see A/46/40, paragraphs 707 and 708;

453/1991 - Coeriel (A/50/40); follow-up reply, dated 28 March 1995, unpublished;

786/1997 - Vos (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 612;

846/1999 - Jansen-Gielen (A/56/40); for follow-up reply, see A/57/40, paragraph 245.

Notes

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

in which the case appears; annex VI refers to the present report, vol. II.

CCPR CCPR/C/80/FU/1 (2004)

Follow‑Up Progress Report submitted by The Special Rapporteur for Follow‑Up on Views

Follow‑up progress report

1. The current report updates the previous Follow‑up Progress Report, (CCPR/C/71/R.13) [Ed. Note: CCPR/C/71/R.13 is not publicly available] which focused on cases in which, by the end of February 2001, no or only incomplete follow‑up information had been received from States parties, or where follow‑up information challenged the findings and recommendations of the Committee. In an effort to reduce the size of the follow‑up report, this current report only reflects cases in which information was received from either the author or the State party from 1 March 2001 to 2 April 2004. It is the intention of the Special Rapporteur to update this report on an annual basis.

...

NETHERLANDS:

Jansen‑Gielen, Case no. 846/1999, Views adopted on 3 April 2001

Violations found: Article 14, paragraph 1

Issues of case: Inequality of arms in judicial proceedings

Remedy recommended: "An effective remedy" to the authors.

Deadline for State party follow‑up information: 28 August 2001

Follow‑up information received from State party: By submission of 10 September 2001, the State party informed the Committee that it had paid the author ex gratia 5,000 guilders, including any costs of psychiatric reports provided in the national proceedings, and a further 3,500 guilders by way of reimbursement for legal assistance. As to the systemic issue, the entry into force of the General Administrative Law Act on 1 January 1994 prevents recurrence of future similar violations.

Follow‑up information received from author: None

Special Rapporteur's recommendations: No further consideration under the follow‑up procedure required, as the State party has complied with the Committee's recommendations.

...

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

CHAPTER VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

...

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.^*

...

Netherlands:	Views in seven cases with findings of violations:
	172/1984 - Broeks (A/42/40); follow-up reply, dated 23 February 1995, unpublished;
	182/1984 - Zwaan-de Vries (A/42/40); follow-up reply, unpublished;
	305/1988 - van Alphen (A/45/40); for follow-up reply, see A/46/40, paragraphs 707 and 708;
	453/1991 - Coeriel (A/50/40); follow-up reply, dated 28 March 1995, unpublished;
	786/1997 - Vos (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 612;
	846/1999 - Jansen-Gielen (A/56/40); for follow-up reply, see A/57/40, paragraph 245. In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that this case should not be considered further under the follow-up procedure as the State party had complied with the Committee=s Views;
	976/2001 - Derksen (annex IX); follow-up not yet due.

_______________

Notes

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.

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

...

CHAPTER VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

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.

FOLLOW-UP RECEIVED TO DATE FOR ALL CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE COVENANT

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

...

Netherlands (7)

172/1984, Broeks

A/42/40

A/59/40*

*Note: The information was provided on 23 February 1995, but was unpublished (see A/59/40). The State party indicated that it had retroactively amended its legislation, thereby granting the author a satisfactory remedy. It referred to two cases subsequently considered by the Committee in which no violations of the Covenant were found, namely Lei-van de Meer (478/1991) and Cavalcanti Araujo-Jongen (418/1990), as the alleged inconsistency and/or deficiency had been corrected by the retrospective amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991. Thus, as the situation was the same in the Broeks case the amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991 afforded the author sufficient satisfaction.

182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries

A/42/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 December 1990, but was unpublished. It appears from the Follow-up file that in this response author=s counsel indicated that the author had received her benefits covering the two years she was unemployed.

305/1988, van Alphen

A/45/40

A/46/40

453/1991, Coeriel

A/50/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 March 1995, but was unpublished. The State party submitted that although its legislation and policy in the field of the changing of names offer sufficient guarantees to prevent future violations of article 17 of the Covenant, out of respect for the Committee=s opinion, the Government decided to ask the authors whether they still wished to change their names in line with their applications and if so, permission would be granted for such a change to be effected without costs.

786/1997, Vos

A/54/40

A/55/40

846/1999, Jansen-Gielen

A/56/40

A/57/40

A/59/40

976/2001, Derksen

A/59/40

A/60/40

^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.

CCPR, A/61/40 vol. I (2006)

...

CHAPTER VI FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

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.

FOLLOW‑UP RECEIVED TO DATE FOR ALL CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE COVENANT

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

...

Netherlands (8)

172/1984, Broeks

A/42/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 23 February 1995 (unpublished). The State party indicated that it had retroactively amended its legislation thereby granting the author a satisfactory remedy. It referred to two cases subsequently considered by the Committee in which no violations of the Covenant were found, namely Lei‑van de Meer (478/1991) and Cavalcanti Araujo‑Jongen (418/1990), as the alleged inconsistency and/or deficiency had been corrected by the retrospective amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991. Thus, as the situation was the same in the Broeks case the amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991 afforded the author sufficient satisfaction.

182/1984, Zwaan‑de Vries

A/42/40

A/59/40*

305/1988, van Alphen

A/45/40

A/46/40

453/1991, Coeriel

A/50/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 March 1995 (unpublished). The State party submitted that although its legislation and policy in the field of the changing of names offer sufficient guarantees to prevent future violations of article 17 of the Covenant, out of respect for the Committee=s Views, the Government decided to ask the authors whether they still wish to change their names in line with their applications and if so permission would be granted for such a change to be effected without costs.

786/1997, Vos

A/54/40

A/55/40

846/1999, Jansen‑Gielen

A/56/40

A/57/40

A/59/40

976/2001, Derksen

A/59/40

A/60/40

1238/2003, Jongenburger Veerman

A/61/40

...

CCPR, A/62/40 vol. I (2007)

...

CHAPTER VI. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

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.

FOLLOW‑UP RECEIVED TO DATE FOR ALL CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE COVENANT

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

...

Netherlands (8)

172/1984, Broeks

A/42/40

A/59/40*

182/1984, Zwaan‑de Vries

A/42/40

A/59/40*

305/1988, van Alphen

A/45/40

A/46/40

453/1991, Coeriel

A/50/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 March 1995 (unpublished). The State party submitted that although its legislation and policy in the field of the changing of names offered sufficient guarantees to prevent future violations of article 17 of the Covenant, out of respect for the Committee=s Views, the Government haddecided to ask the authors whether they still wished to change their names in line with their applications and if so permission would be granted for such a change to be effected without costs.

786/1997, Vos

A/54/40

A/55/40

846/1999, Jansen‑Gielen

A/56/40

A/57/40

A/59/40

976/2001, Derksen

A/59/40

A/60/40

1238/2003, Jongenburger Veerman A/61/40

...

CCPR, A/63/40 vol. I (2008)

VI. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

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.

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

...

Netherlands (8)

172/1984, Broeks

A/42/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 23 February 1995 (unpublished). The State party indicated that it had retroactively amended its legislation, thereby granting the author a satisfactory remedy. It referred to two cases subsequently considered by the Committee in which no violations of the Covenant were found, namely Lei-van de Meer (No. 478/1991) and Cavalcanti Araujo-Jongen (No. 418/1990), as the alleged inconsistency and/or deficiency had been corrected by the retrospective amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991. Thus, as the situation was the same in the Broeks case, the amendment embodied in the Act of 6 June 1991 afforded the author sufficient satisfaction.

182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries

A/42/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 December 1990 (unpublished). It appears from the follow-up file that, in this response, the author=s counsel indicated that the author had received her benefits covering the two years she was unemployed.

305/1988, van Alphen

A/45/40

A/46/40

453/1991, Coeriel

A/50/40

A/59/40*

*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 28 March 1995 (unpublished). The State party submitted that, although its legislation and policy in the field of the changing of names offer sufficient guarantees to prevent future violations of article 17 of the Covenant, out of respect for the Committee=s Views, the Government decided to ask the authors whether they still wish to change their names in line with their applications and, if so, permission would be granted for such a change to be effected without costs.

Netherlands (cont=d)

786/1997, Vos

A/54/40

A/55/40

846/1999, Jansen-Gielen

A/56/40

A/57/40

A/59/40

976/2001, Derksen

A/59/40

A/60/40

1238/2003,

Jongenburger Veerman

A/61/40

...

CCPR, A/64/40, vol. I (2009)

VI. FOLLOW UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

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.

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

...

Netherlands (8)

172/1984, Broeks

A/42/40

A/59/40*

182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries

A/42/40

A/59/40*

305/1988, van Alphen

A/45/40

A/46/40

453/1991, CoerielA/50/40

XA/59/40*

786/1997, Vos

A/54/40

A/55/40

Netherlands (cont=d)

846/1999, Jansen-Gielen

A/56/40

A/57/40

A/59/40

976/2001, Derksen

A/59/40

A/60/40

1238/2003,

Jongenburger Veerman

A/61/40

...

A/64/40 vol. II (2009)

...

Annex IX

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/63/40).

...

State party

Netherlands

Case

A. K. H. A., 1542/2007

Views adopted on

39645

Issues and violations found

Review of conviction and sentence - article 14, paragraph 5

Remedy recommended

Effective remedy, including the review of his appeal before the Court of Appeals and compensation.

Due date for State party response

39873

Date of State party response

27 February 2009 and 28 May 2009

State party response

On 27 February 2009, the State party submitted that upon a review of the relevant law, the Supreme Court concluded that all the Court of Appeal=s decisions on denial of leave to appeal, according to the Criminal Procedure Act, section 231, subsection 2, shall include reasons for its decision. In this regard, in its judgement of 17 July 2008, the Supreme Court made reference to the Committee=s Views. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has stated that it will take the initiative to amend the Criminal Procedure Act, so that the applicable requirement for written reasons in such circumstances is expressed in the wording of the Act. In addition, the State party submitted that it published the

Committee=s Views on the Court Administrations= homepage and the government page and that the Views were also referred to several times in the Norwegian media.

In December 2008, the Ministry of Justice paid a total of NOK 194,100 to the plaintiff=s counsel, which partly covers the counsel=s work on the case before the Committee (NOK 184,100) and partly translation expenses (NOK 10,000). Following a request for additional compensation from the author for damages for non-economic loss, on 28 October 2008 the Attorney General informed the author that the claim for additional compensation cannot be settled until the author=s application for leave to appeal has been tried by the courts once again.

On 27 December 2008, the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission decided to reopen the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court=s decision 19 July 2006 in the author=s case. In its reasons for re-opening the case, the Review Commission refers to section 391 No. 2 b of the Criminal Procedure Act, which sets out the circumstances in which a case may be reopened following a decision by the Human Rights Committee.

Author=s comments

On 24 March 2009, the author welcomed the measures taken so far by the State party, however submitted that he has not been awarded full compensation in accordance with the Committee=s decision. According to the author, the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General have stated that his claim for compensation cannot be settled until his application reopening his leave to appeal has been heard in court. Moreover, the Attorney General claims that compensation will only be awarded if the author is in fact given leave to appeal and the conviction against him is changed by the Court of Appeal. The author considers the Attorney General=s view as disregard for the State party=s obligations under the Covenant and that he should be entitled to compensation for the human rights violation in itself, irrespective of the outcome of his application for review. He submits that the Committee did not qualify the obligation to provide compensation with any such conditions and that compensation should be awarded to remedy a violation which he has already been made a victim of.

The author also disagrees with another of the Attorney General=s arguments, that compensation will only be awarded as provided for under Norwegian law, and only if the criteria under Norwegian law are fulfilled. According to the author, if the Committee had wished to tie the entitlement to compensation to the Norwegian rules concerning damages, the Committee would have expressed itself differently. For example, it would have requested Acompensation according to law@. In the author=s view, if the Attorney General=s argument was accepted it would mean that compensation for human rights violations as ordered by the Committee would become essentially futile. Any State could simply avoid its obligation by way of its national laws.

Finally, the author provided detailed information of the losses he has suffered to date as a result of the judgement and prison sentence, inter alia: the loss of his house; indebtedness to the amount of approximately 437,500 euros; is currently a disabled pensioner; the bank refusal to disburse his credit insurance and the town treasurer extracts tax payments as deductions from his disability pension. He is also threatened with bankruptcy.

State party=s further comments

On 28 May 2009, the State party refutes the author=s allegations that it has failed to adequately follow-up on the Views and reiterates the measures already taken by the State party. It states that since 19 December 2008, the Norwegian Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have given reasons for their denials of leave to appeal and that the proposal for an amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act will be sent for public hearing in May 2009.

As to the author=s case, the State party states that on 26 January 2009, the Appeal Committee of the Supreme Court decided that the decisions of the Borgarting Appeal Court of 1 June 2006, to deny the appeal from the author in the criminal case against him, should be quashed, and that his appeal shall be tried again by one of the other courts of appeal, Gulating Appeal Court. The Government expects the decision soon.

In the State party=s view, the economic losses that the author claims to be caused Aby the human rights violations@ , were not caused by the Borgarting Appeals Court=s failure to give reasons for its denial of appeal, but rather by the fact that the author was convicted by the districted court and has served his time in prison. All losses described in counsel=s letter of 24 March 2009 appear to flow from his conviction as such. Whether this conviction was correct or erroneous is till a pending issue, but will, in due course, be decided by the Gulating Appeal Court. If his is acquitted then he has been subject to unwarranted prosecution, at which point he will have the right to both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. If his conviction is confirmed, neither it nor his time in prison has been unwarranted. However, even so, he may file a claim for compensation for pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary losses pursuant to a special rule in the Criminal Procedure Act. The State party makes reference to the Committee=s general comment No. 31 (2004) for the proposition that remedies do not have to be in the form of pecuniary compensation.

Author=s further comments

On 2 June 2009, the author reiterates that the State party=s decision to date to pay compensation only for legal expenses does not fulfil the Committee=s requirement for Acompensation@ set out in its Views. The claims for compensation the author may make under the Criminal Procedure Act are tied to a different set of circumstances and do not relate to the violation of his rights under article 14 of the Covenant.

Committee=s Decision

The follow-up dialogue is ongoing.

...

State party	NETHERLANDS
Case	Derksen, 976/2001
Views adopted on	1 April 2004
Issues and violations found	Discrimination in provision for orphans ‑ article 26.
Remedy recommended	The State party is under an obligation to provide half orphans= benefits in respect of Kaya Marcelle Bakker or an equivalent remedy.
Due date for State party response	24 August 2004
Date of reply	19 August 2004