SURINAME
Follow‑up - Jurisprudence
Action by Treaty Bodies
CCPR A/51/40, vol. I (1996)
VIII. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
...
429. A country‑by‑country breakdown of follow‑up replies received or requested and outstanding as at 26 July 1996 provides the following picture:
...
Suriname: Eight views with findings of violations; two follow‑up consultations with the Permanent Mission of Suriname during the fifty‑third and fifty‑sixth sessions. The State party's preliminary follow‑up reply, dated 25 July 1996, indicated that the Surinamese Parliament had passed a resolution recognizing that the assassination of the victims was in violation of basic human rights and that an independent judicial inquiry was being set up. Inquiries into the results of the investigation to be made during the fifty‑eighth session.
...
Overview of the Special Rapporteur=s follow up consultations
...
451. During the fifty‑sixth session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of Suriname to discuss matters related to the follow‑up on views adopted by the Committee in eight Surinamese cases in 1985. He noted that follow‑up information on those views had still not been received in spite of two reminders and a meeting held in New York during the fifty‑third (March/ April 1995) session. He requested a succinct report, by l July 1996, outlining the measures that the State party had taken to compensate the families of the victims. On 25 July 1996, the State party forwarded to the Special Rapporteur a preliminary reply, indicating that the Surinamese Parliament had passed a resolution which acknowledges that the assassination of the victims in December 1982 constituted a flagrant violation of basic human rights. The State party indicated that an independent Commission of Investigation was being established to investigate the murders.
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):
...
Suriname: Eight Views with findings of violations: 146/1983 and 148‑154/1983 ‑ Baboeram et al. (see Selected decisions, vol. 2);13/ State party follow‑up reply remains outstanding, in spite of follow‑up consultations during the fifty‑ninth session (see also 1996 Report, 10/ paras. 429 and 451 and para. 549 below).
...
Overview of follow‑up replies received and of the Special Rapporteur's follow‑up consultations during the reporting period
...
549. Suriname: On 9 April 1997, the Special Rapporteur and Committee member Mrs. Cecilia Medina Quiroga met with the Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Suriname to the United Nations and discussed the lack of follow‑up by Suriname to the Committee's Views on communications Nos. 146 and 148‑154/1983 (Baboeram et al.), adopted on 4 April 1985. The State party representative indicated that after a blaze which had destroyed much of Parliament and the Foreign Ministry in July 1996 and elections held in mid‑1996, a new Cabinet had been formed in September 1996, which accounted for some delays in meeting international obligations under the Covenant. She could not indicate whether investigations on the above‑mentioned cases promised by the Government in a note verbale of 25 July 1996 were being continued or had produced a result. The Special Rapporteur and Mrs. Medina underlined the State party's obligation to implement the Committee's recommendations and to so inform the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
...
Concern over instances of non‑cooperation under the follow‑up mandate
_________
13/ [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected decisions under the Optional Protocol], (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.
10/ [Official Records of the General Assembly], Fifty-first Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/51/40).
...
554. In spite of some progress in collecting follow‑up information since the adoption of its 1996 Report, the Committee and the Special Rapporteur note with concern that a number of countries did not provide any follow‑up information within the deadlines established by the Committee or have not replied to reminders or requests for information from the Special Rapporteur. Those States which have not replied to requests for follow‑up information are the following (in alphabetical order):
...
Suriname: eight cases;
...
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.
CCPR A/53/40, vol. I (1998)
VIII. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
...
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.
...
Suriname: Eight Views with findings of violations: 146/1983 and 148‑154/1983 ‑ Baboeram et al. (see Selected decisions, vol. 2);3/ consultations during the fifty‑ninth session (see 1996 Report (A/51/40) and 1997 Report (A/52/40)); State party's follow‑up reply, dated 2 September 1997 (see paras. 500 and 501 below).
...
Overview of follow‑up replies received and of the Special Rapporteur's follow‑up consultations during the reporting period
...
500. Suriname. By note of 27 August 1997, Suriname reiterates its determination to observe fundamental human rights, which are best served by an integrated set of measures that would take into account all aspects of these rights. The State party acknowledges that appropriate compensation should be given to the families of victims of human rights violations. At present, the State party is engaged in seeking urgent solutions to the dire social and economic circumstances prevailing in the country, and it envisages nationwide discussions on all aspects of human rights, both political and economic. The State party will present the result of these discussions to the Human Rights Committee as soon as they are available.
501. No mention is made in the reply about any concrete measures taken in the light of the Committee's Views on communications Nos. 146 and 148‑154/1983 (Baboeram et al.).
__________________
3/ [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected decisions under the Optional Protocol], (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.
...
507. The Committee decided that in view of the replies received, further follow‑up consultations are required in respect of Australia, Panama, Spain, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.
...
CCPR A/54/40, vol. I (1999)
VII. FOLLOW‑UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
...
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.
...
Suriname: Eight Views with findings of violations: 146/1983 and 148‑154/1983 ‑ Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); consultations held during the fifty‑ninth session (see A/51/40, para. 451 and A/52/40, para. 549); for State party's follow‑up reply, see A/53/40, paras. 500‑501).
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.
...
Suriname: Eight Views with findings of violations: 146/1983 and 148-154/1983 - Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); consultations held during the fifty-ninth session (see A/51/40, para. 451 and A/52/40, para. 549); for the State party=s follow-up reply, see A/53/40, paras. 500-501. For follow-up consultations during the Committee=s sixty‑eighth session, see below.
...
Overview of follow-up replies received and of the Special Rapporteur=s follow-up consultations during the reporting period
...
Suriname. On 23 March 2000, a meeting took place between the Ambassador and the Deputy Permanent Representative of Suriname to the United Nations and the Chairperson of the Committee and the Special Rapporteur for the follow‑up on Views to discuss the lack of effective response to the Committee=s Views.
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.
...
Suriname: Views concerning eight cases with findings of violations: 146/1983 and 148-154/1983 - Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); consultations held during the fifty-ninth session (see A/51/40, paragraph 451, and A/52/40, paragraph 549); for follow-up reply, see A/53/40, paragraphs. 500-501. For follow-up consultations during the Committee=s sixty-eighth session, see A/55/40, paragraph 614.
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.
...
Suriname: Views in eight cases with findings of violations:
146/1983 and 148-154/1983 - Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); consultations held during the fifty-ninth session (see A/51/40, paragraph 451, and A/52/40, paragraph 549); for follow-up reply, see A/53/40, paragraphs 500-501. For follow-up consultations during the Committee=s sixty-eighth session, see A/55/40, paragraph 614.
...
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.*
...
Suriname: Views in eight cases with findings of violations:
146/1983 and 148-154/1983 - Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2); consultations held during the fifty-ninth session (see A/51/40, paragraph 451, and A/52/40, paragraph 549); for follow-up reply, see A/53/40, paragraphs 500-501. For follow-up consultations during the Committee=s sixty-eighth session, see A/55/40, paragraph 614.
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 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.*
...
|
Suriname: |
Views in eight cases with findings of violations: |
|
|
146/1983 and 148-154/1983 - Baboeram et al. (in Selected Decisions, vol.2); consultations held during the fifty-ninth session (see A/51/40, paragraph 451, and A/52/40, paragraph 549); for follow-up reply, see A/53/40, paragraphs 500-501. For follow-up consultations during the Committee=s sixty-eighth session, see A/55/40, paragraph 614. |
_______________
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suriname (8) |
146/1983, Baboeram Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
148-154/1983 Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suriname (8) |
146/1983, Baboeram Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
148‑154/1983 Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CCPR, A/61/40 vol. II (2006)
...
Annex VII
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/60/40).
...
|
State party |
SURINAME - GENERAL INFORMATION ON ALL CASES |
|
Case |
Baboeram et al., 146/1983 and Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost, 148 - 154/1983 |
|
Views adopted on |
4 April 1984 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Arbitrary execution - Article 6, paragraph 1 |
|
Remedy recommended |
The Committee therefore urges the State party to take effective steps (i) to investigate the killings of December 1982; (ii) to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for the death of the victims; (iii) to pay compensation to the surviving families; and (iv) to ensure that the right to life is duly protected in Suriname. |
|
Due date for State party response |
5 June 1991 |
|
Date of State party=s response |
The State party had responded on 27 August 1997 |
|
State party response |
It acknowledges in principle that appropriate compensation should be given to the victims of human rights violations, including the authors= families, and that the Government will initiate Aa nation-wide discussion on all aspects of human rights (political and economic)@. The results of these consultations would be forwarded to the Committee as soon as they become available. |
|
Further action taken |
On 14 March 2006, Messrs. Ando and Rivas Posada, Kristen Boon and a member of the Secretariat had a follow-up meeting with the ambassador of Suriname, Ewald Wensley Limon.Follow-up to the concluding observations of 2004, notably on the priority concerns expressed in paragraphs 8, 11 and 14, and the status of implementation, or lack thereof, of the Views in case Nos. 146 and 148 to 154/1983 (Baboeram et al. v. Suriname) was discussed.
Both Mr. Rivas Posada and Mr. Ando stressed the bona fide duty on the Surinamese government to provide meaningful follow-up replies on the concluding observations of 2004 and on the Views in the above case. Especially in the case of the Views on Baboeram et al., the follow-up discussion had been going on for many years.
Ambassador Limon indicated that a team of >legal experts= in the capital had been tasked with working on human rights issues before international bodies, and that this team was working on follow-up issues. In addition, the MAHUINA case [mentioned during the discussion on the second report in 2004] was currently pending beforethe Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and considerable ground of relevance to the victims of past human rights violations was covered in this case (e.g. compensation to victims). |
|
|
The Ambassador indicated that he would solicit follow-up replies from the authorities in Paramaribo by the end of June, but at the same time indicated that he could not guarantee that a reply would be forthcoming in time for inclusion in the next annual report (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.
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suriname (8) |
146/1983, Baboeram Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
148‑154/1983 Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suriname (8) |
146/1983, Baboeram Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
148 to 154/1983, Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suriname (8) |
146/1983, Baboeram Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
Suriname (cont=d) |
148 to 154/1983, Kamperveen, Riedewald, Leckie, Demrawsingh, Sohansingh, Rahman, Hoost Twenty-fourth session Selected Decisions, vol. 2 |
X A/51/40, A/52/40, A/53/40, A/55/40, A/61/40 |
|
|
|
X |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|