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

Nicaragua: One decision finding violations; no follow-up reply received from the State party, in spite of reminder addressed to it on 28 June 1995. Follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to be conducted during the fifty-eighth session.

463. In spite of the progress in collecting follow-up information since the adoption of the last annual 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. The States that have not replied to requests for follow-up information are the following:

464. The Special Rapporteur urges these States parties to reply to his requests for follow-up information within the imparted deadlines.

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):

Nicaragua: One decision finding violations: 328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (1994 Report);9/ State party follow-up reply remains outstanding, in spite of reminder addressed to State party in June 1995, and follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua during the fifty-ninth session (see para. 544 below).

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

544. Nicaragua: On 2 April 1997, the Special Rapporteur held consultations with the Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the United Nations concerning the State party's failure to implement the Committee's recommendations in the Views, adopted on 20 July 1994, in case No. 328/1988 (Roberto Zelaya Blanco). The Chargé d'affaires noted that the facts at the basis of the complaint were attributable to the former Government. The Special Rapporteur insisted that the State party was responsible to provide the author with a remedy regardless of which Government was in power. The Chargé d'affaires indicated that as many years had passed since the events at issue, a full investigation into them might not now be possible but that it should be possible to grant compensation to the author. He agreed to seek to obtain a follow-up reply in time for the Committee's sixtieth session; the reply had not been received by the end of that session.

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

9/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40).

not replied to reminders or requests for information from the Special Rapporteur. Those States 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.

Nicaragua: One decision finding violations: 328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (1994 Report (A/49/40)); State party follow-up reply remains outstanding, in spite of reminder addressed to State party in June 1995, and follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua during the fifty-ninth session (see 1997 Report (A/52/40), paras. 524 and 544).

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 o 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: ... Nicaragua ...

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.

Nicaragua: One decision finding violations: 328/1988 -Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); follow-up reply remains outstanding, in spite of reminder addressed to State party in June 1995 and follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the United Nations during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 544).

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.

Nicaragua: One decision finding violations: 328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); a follow-up reply remains outstanding, in spite of a reminder addressed to the State party in June 1995 and follow-up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the United Nations during the fifty-ninth session (A/52/40, para. 544).

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.

Nicaragua: Views in one case finding violations: 328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); for follow-up reply, see below.

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

192. Nicaragua: By submission of 23 July 2001, in respect of case No. 328/1988 - Zelaya the State party informed the Committee that in Nicaragua there is no special procedure for demanding compensation in cases of torture and ill-treatment. The author can, however, demand compensation through the ordinary courts pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Compensation cannot be paid by virtue of an executive decree or administrative decision, but would require a judicial decision. With regard to the Committee’s request that the State party carry out an official investigation into the torture and ill-treatment suffered by the author, the State party explains that in view of the many years that have elapsed since the violations, it is very difficult for the State party to carry out the necessary investigations, also taking into account that the Oficina de Seguridad de Estado no longer exists, the old prison authorities have been transferred elsewhere and certain amnesties are now in force.

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.

328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); for follow-up reply, see A/56/40, paragraph 192, and paragraph [246] 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

230. The Committee welcomes the follow-up replies that have been received during the reporting period and expresses its appreciation for all the measures taken or envisaged to provide victims of violations of the Covenant with an effective remedy. It encourages all States parties which have addressed preliminary follow-up replies to the Special Rapporteur to conclude their investigations in as expeditious a manner as possible and to inform the Special Rapporteur of their results. The follow-up replies received during the period under review and other developments are summarized below.

246. Nicaragua: With regard to case No. 328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40), the State party, by submission of 19 March 2002 and following consultations with the Special Rapporteur at the Committee’s seventy-fourth session in March 2001, reiterated earlier submissions to the Committee to the effect that in Nicaragua there is no special procedure for demanding compensation in cases of torture and ill-treatment. The author can, however, demand compensation through the ordinary courts pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Compensation cannot be paid by virtue of an executive decree or administrative decision, but would require a judicial decision. With regard to the Committee’s request that the State party carry out an official investigation into the torture and ill-treatment suffered by the author, the State party explains that in view of the many years that have elapsed since the violations, it is very difficult for the State party to carry out the necessary investigations, also taking into account that the Oficina de Seguridad de Estado no longer exists, the old prison authorities have been transferred elsewhere and certain amnesties are now in force.

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.^*

328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); for follow-up reply, see A/56/40, paragraph 192 and A/57/40, paragraph 246.

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

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

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.

Violations found: Articles 7, 9, paragraph 1, 10, paragraph 1 and 14, paragraph 3 (g)

Issues of case: Arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment, denial of medical treatment and forced confession

Remedy recommended: Appropriate compensation and an official investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment and torture

Follow-up information received from State party: By submissions of 23 July 2001 and 19 March 2002, the State party informed the Committee that there is no special procedure for demanding compensation in cases of torture and ill-treatment. The author could, however, request compensation through the ordinary courts pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure. Compensation cannot be paid by virtue of an executive decree or administrative decision, but would require a judicial decision. With regard to the Committee's request that the State party carryout an official investigation into the torture and ill-treatment suffered by the author, the State party explained that in view of the many years that have elapsed since the violations, it is very difficult for the State party to carry out the necessary investigations, also taking into account that the Oficina de Seguridad de Estado no longer exists, the old prison authorities have been transferred elsewhere and certain amnesties are now in force.

Follow-up information received from author: See previous follow-up report (CCPR/C/71/R.13) or the Committee's Annual Report (A/57/40, Vol.1, para. 246.

Consultations with State party: During the 74th session, the Special Rapporteur met with the representative of the State party who reiterated the abovementioned information previously supplied.

Special Rapporteur's recommendations: The Committee should request further information on this case during consideration of the next report.

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.^*

Nicaragua:	Views in one case with findings of violations:
	328/1988 - Zelaya Blanco (A/49/40); for follow-up reply, see A/56/40, paragraph 192 and A/57/40, paragraph 246. In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that further information should be requested of the State party during consideration of its next report.

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

...

Nicaragua (1)

328/1988, Zelaya Blanco

A/49/40

X (incomplete)

A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40

^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.

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
...
Nicaragua (1)	328/1988, Zelaya Blanco A/49/40	X (incomplete) A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40				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
...
Nicaragua (1)	328/1988, Zelaya Blanco A/49/40	X (incomplete) A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40				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
...
Nicaragua (1)	328/1988, Zelaya Blanco A/49/40	X (incomplete) A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40				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
...
Nicaragua (1)	328/1988, Zelaya Blanco A/49/40	X (incomplete) A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40				X
...