SLOVAKIA
Follow-up
- Jurisprudence
Action by Treaty Bodies
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.
...
Slovakia: Views in one case with
findings of violations:
923/2000 - Matyus
(annex IX); follow-up reply not yet due.
...
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.
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.*
...
Slovakia: Views
in one case with findings of violations:
923/2000 - Mátyus
(A/57/40); for follow-up reply, see paragraph 248 below.
...
Overview of follow-up replies
received during the reporting period, Special Rapporteur=s follow-up consultations and other
developments
224.
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 that 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.
...
248.
Slovakia: case No.
923/2000 - Mátyus: on 31 October
2002, the State party acknowledged that the author=s rights under article 25 of the
Covenant had been violated and recalled that, as far as the author was
concerned, the Committee had decided that the finding of a violation was
sufficient remedy. The State party noted
that the Views had been transmitted to the Constitutional Court, the
Attorney-General=s Office and other relevant
ministries and State administrative bodies.
After a detailed review of the applicable legal regulations, the State
party concluded that the violation of the author=s rights was caused not by
inappropriate or discriminatory regulations, but by the improper application of
the regulations by the competent local administration. Thus, no amendment to the legal regulations
would be needed. A copy of the full text
of the follow-up reply is on file with the secretariat.
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.
...
THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC:
Mátyus v. Slovak Republic, Case no.
923/2000, Views adopted on 22 July 2002
Violations found: Article 25 (a) and (c).
Issues of case: Inequality in elections
Remedy recommended: Given that cancelling elections
after they have already taken place may not always be the appropriate remedy in
the case of an inequality in the elections, especially when the inequality was
inherent in the laws and regulations laid down before the elections, rather
than irregularities in the elections themselves. Furthermore, in the specific
circumstances of the case, given the time lapse since the elections in December
1998, the Committee is of the opinion that its finding of a violation is of
itself a sufficient remedy.
Deadline for State party follow‑up
information: 28
October 2002
Follow‑up information received
from State party:
On 21 October 2002, the State party accepted that the author's rights had been
violated by the incorrect application of the electoral regulations. To prevent
future violations of this nature the Minister of the Interior has issued
directives to the administrative bodies responsible for organizing elections on
the correct application of these regulations. The Views have been published.
Follow‑up information received
from author: None
Special Rapporteur's recommendations: No further consideration under the
follow‑up procedure.
...
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.*
...
|
Slovakia: |
Views in one case with
findings of violations: |
|
|
923/2000 - Mátyus (A/57/40); for
follow-up reply, see A/58/40, paragraph 248.
In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee
during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that this
case no longer be considered under the follow-up procedure. |
_______________
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 locationa |
Follow-up response
received from State party and location |
Satisfactory response |
Unsatisfactory response |
No follow-up response |
Follow-up dialogue ongoing |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovakia (1) |
923/2000, Mátyus A/57/40 |
X A/58/40 |
X |
|
|
|
a The
location refers to the document symbol of the Official Records of the
General Assembly, Supplement No. 40, which is the annual report of the
Committee to the respective sessions of the Assembly.
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.
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.
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovakia (1) |
923/2000, Mátyus A/57/40 |
X A/58/40 |
X |
|
|
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovakia (1) |
923/2000,
Mátyus A/57/40 |
X A/58/40 |
X |
|
|
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovakia (1) |
923/2000,
Mátyus A/57/40 |
X A/58/40 |
X |
|
|
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slovakia (1) |
923/2000,
Mátyus A/57/40 |
X A/58/40 |
X |
|
|
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|