LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

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:

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: One decision finding violations; no follow-up reply received. A reminder to be addressed to the State party.

...

Concern over instances of non-cooperation under the follow-up mandate

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:

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (no reply in respect of one case);

...

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

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):

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: One decision finding violations: 440/1990 -El Megreisi (1994 Report);9/ State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding. Author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation outstanding.

...

Concern over instances of non-cooperation under the follow-up mandate

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):

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: one case;

...

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.

___________

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

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 has 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.

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: One decision finding violations: 440/1990 - El Megreisi (1994 Report (A/49/40)0; State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding. Author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

...

Concern over the follow-up mandate

...

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

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.

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: One decision finding violations: 440/1990 -El-Megreisi (A/49/40); State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding. Author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

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.

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: One decision finding violations: 440/1990 - El-Megreisi (A/49/40); the State party's follow-up reply remains outstanding. The author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

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.

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Views in one case finding violations: 440/1990 - El-Megreisi (A/49/40); follow-up reply remains outstanding. The author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

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.

...

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Views in one case with findings of violations:

440/1990 - El-Megreisi (A/49/40); follow-up reply remains outstanding. The author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

...

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.*

...

Libyan Arab	Views in one case with findings of violations:

Jamahiriya:

440/1990 - El-Megreisi (A/49/40); follow-up reply remains outstanding. The author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995. Compensation remains outstanding.

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.*

...

Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya:	Views in one case with findings of violations:
440/1990 - El-Megreisi (A/49/40); follow-up reply remains outstanding; the author has informed the Committee that his brother was released in March 1995; compensation remains outstanding.

_______________

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
...
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2)	440/1990, El-Megreisi

A/49/40	X	X
1107/2002, El Ghar

A/60/40	X	X

a The location refers to the document symbol of the Official Records of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 40, which is the annual report of the Committee to the respective sessions of the Assembly.

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

...

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/59/40).

...

State party	LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Case	El Megreisi, 440/1992
Views adopted on	23 March 1994
Issues and violations found	The victim was kept in incommunicado detention, in a secret location, for years without ever being charged. The Committee concluded that his rights under articles 7, 9 and 10, paragraph 1 had been violated.
Remedy recommended	The Committee urged the State party to take effective measures to secure the victim's immediate release and provide him with compensation.
Due date for State party response	July 1994
State party response	None
Further action taken/required	During the eighty-fourth session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party and discussed follow-up to the Committee's Views. The State party representative indicated that a previous request for pertinent follow-up information from the competent authorities had gone without reply, but he pledged to cooperate with the Committee on follow-up in the future.

State party	LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Case	El Ghar, 1107/2002
Views adopted on	29 March 2004
Issues and violations found	Refusal by the State party to issue the author with a passport - article 12, paragraph 2.
Remedy recommended	The State party is under an obligation to ensure that the author has an effective remedy, including compensation. The Committee urges the State party to issue the author with a passport without further delay.
Due date for State party response	4 February 2005
State party response	None
Author's response	In a letter dated 23 June 2005 the author referred to the State party's failure to implement the Committee's Views. She had recently met with the Libyan consul in Casablanca, who informed her that he was not in a position to issue the passport, as the decision to that effect had to be taken by the central authorities.
Further action taken/required	During the eighty-fourth session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party and discussed follow-up to the Committee's Views. The State party representative noted that the Libyan embassy in Morocco had once again been instructed to issue a passport to the author; he expressed confidence that a passport would be issued to Ms. El Ghar within weeks.

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2392 (2006)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Eighty-seventh session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 2392nd MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 26 July 2006, at 11 a.m.

...

FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON STATE REPORTS AND TO VIEWS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (agenda item 7)

Report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views (CCPR/C/87/R.3)

...

27. Ms. FOX (Petitions team), referring to El Ghar v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (communication No. 1107/2002), said Ms. El Ghar had recently informed the Committee that she had received her passport. She had, however, filed a new claim for compensation for the time that had been wasted while she had been waiting for the passport, which had prevented her from travelling to Switzerland to study.

28. Mr. SOLARI YRIGOYEN said that the "other documents" mentioned in the final paragraph of the author's response had not been mentioned in the original communication. The words should therefore be deleted.

29. The CHAIRPERSON endorsed Mr. Solari Yrigoyen's suggestion.

...

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
...
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2)	440/1990, El-Megreisi

A/49/40	X	X
1107/2002, El Ghar

A/60/40	X

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	LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Case	El Ghar, 1107/2002
Views adopted on	29 March 2004
Issues and violations found	Refusal by the State party to issue the author with a passport - Article 12, paragraph 2.
Remedy recommended	The State party is under an obligation to ensure that the author has an effective remedy, including compensation. The Committee urges the State party to issue the author with a passport without further delay.
Due date for State party response	4 February 2005
State party response	None
Author's response	The Committee will recall, as set out in the 84th report, that by letter dated 23 June 2005, the author referred to the State party's failure to implement the Committee's Views.

On 21 February 2006, the author informed the Committee that after many meetings with the Libyan consulate in Morocco, in which she was accused, inter alia, of having committed treason against the State party by bringing her case before the Committee, it still does not appear likely that she will receive her passport.

The author informed the Secretariat in October 2005 that the Libyan consulate in Casablanca still refused to issue her passport. In June 2006, she informed the Secretariat by phone that she had been promised her passport. On 7 July 2006, she informed the Secretariat that she had received her passport, but that she had not received any compensation.

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2450 (2007)

Human Rights Committee

Eighty-ninth session

Summary record of the 2450th meeting

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 29 March 2007, at 10 a.m.

...

Follow-up to concluding observations on State reports and to Views under the Optional Protocol

Progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views (CCPR/C/89/R.5)

1.	Mr. Shearer (Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views) introduced his report, which compiled information received during the eighty-eighth and eighty-ninth sessions of the Committee...

...

10.	Mr. Shearer drew attention to the case of El Gahr v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (communication No. 1107/2002). The State party had implemented the Committee's Views by finally issuing a passport to the author for her studies in Europe, but a passport valid for only two, not the usual five, years. Under "further action", the Committee would note the decision to provide the author with a passport but would request the State party to comment on its reasons for issuing a passport valid for only two years.

11.	Mr. Schmidt (Team Leader, Petitions Unit) said the case had been discussed with the State party since the adoption of the Committee's Views in March 2004; regular updates had also been received from the author. There did seem to be an element of vindictiveness in the issuance of a passport valid for only two years, when the author's studies would require at least three years and she would therefore be forced to request the issuance of another passport. In follow-up telephone calls the author had also raised the question of financial compensation for the hardship and financial loss caused by the State party's refusal to issue a passport.

12.	Mr. Khalil, supported by Mr. Bhagwati, said that the Committee must request an explanation from the State party. The case had been dragging on for a long time and the issuance of a passport valid for only two years seemed clearly vindictive. The Committee should try to prevail on the State party to at least issue the author a passport valid for the duration of her studies.

13.	The Chairperson said the Committee's comments on further action would include a request that the State party explain its decision to issue a passport for two years rather than the usual five years.

...

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
...
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (4)	440/1990, El-Megreisi

A/49/40	X	X
1107/2002, El Ghar

A/60/40	X

A/61/40	X

A/62/40
1143/2002, Dernawi

A/62/40	Not yet due
1295/2004, El Awani

A/61/40	Not yet due
...

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

Annex IX

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/61/40).
...
State party	LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Case	El Ghar, 1107/2002
Views adopted on	29 March 2004
Issues and violations found	Refusal by the State party to issue the author with a passport - Article 12, paragraph 2.
Remedy recommended	The State party is under an obligation to ensure that the author has an effective remedy, including compensation. The Committee urges the State party to issue the author with a passport without further delay.
Due date for State party response	4 February 2005
Date of reply	23 August 2006
State party response	Following a request from the Secretariat on behalf of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of providing compensation to the author, the State party provided the following information. It contests the Committee's findings and reiterates its argument provided prior to consideration of the case by the Committee, that the author was never refused a passport and that all she had to do was to fill in a form at the consulate in Casablanca. Although she did go to the consulate on several occasions, the State party claims that she never filled in the forms and thus could not receive her passport. In its view, her claim appears to relate essentially to a request for compensation which she is not at liberty to receive not having been refused a passport in the first place.
Author's response	The Committee will recall, as set out in the 84th report, that by letter dated 23 June 2005, the author referred to the State party's failure to implement the Committee's Views.

On 21 February 2006, she informed the Committee that after many meetings with the Libyan consulate in Morocco, in which she was accused, inter alia, of having committed treason against the State party by bringing her case before the Committee, it still does not appear likely that she will receive her passport.

The author informed the Secretariat in October 2005 that the Libyan consulate in Casablanca still refused to issue her passport. In June 2006, she informed the Secretariat by phone that she had been promised her passport. On 7 July 2006, she informed the Secretariat that she had received her passport, but that she had not received any compensation.
On 24 November 2006, the author responded to the State party's submission, in which she disputes its claim that she was never denied a passport. She claims that she filled in the requisite documents on more than one occasion, that she attended the consulate once or twice every two months but for years was constantly shuttled between the Consulate in Rabat and Casablanca where every attempt was made to prevent her receiving her passport. She claims that the refusal to grant her a passport for such a long time caused her moral, financial, and academic damage and that although she has received her passport now it is a passport for two rather than the usual five years.
...

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
...
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (5)	440/1990, El-Megreisi

A/49/40	X	X
1107/2002, El Ghar

A/60/40	X

A/61/40, A/62/40	X

A/62/40
1143/2002, Dernawi

A/62/40	X
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (cont'd)	1295/2004, El Awani

A/62/40	X
1422/2005, El Hassy

A/63/40	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
...
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (5)	440/1990, El-Megreisi

A/49/40	X	X
1107/2002, El Ghar

A/60/40	X

A/61/40, A/62/40	X

A/62/40
1143/2002, Dernawi

A/62/40	X
1295/2004, El Awani

A/62/40	X
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (cont'd)	1422/2005, El Hassy

A/63/40	X
...