Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CAT

List of all decisions to discontinue

Case Name Comm Number Date
A.A. v. Switzerland 762/2016 20 July 2016
M.M. v. Sweden 668/2015 11 November 2016
S.M. v. Canada 630/2014 11 November 2016
Y.M. v. Switzerland 664/2015 30 November 2016
M.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland 459/2011 30 November 2016
A.L. v. Canada 588/2014 30 November 2016
S.R. v. Australia 626/2014 30 November 2016
K.S. v. Australia 603/2014 30 November 2016
P.N. v. Canada 457/2011 31 July 2017
N.H.Z. v. Canada 590/2014 31 July 2017
N.A.L. et al v. Canada 617/2014 31 July 2017
L.G. and G.T. v. Finland 804/2017 31 July 2017
Hugues Mbele v. Switzerland 755/2016 31 July 2017
J.T. v. Canada 515/2012 10 August 2017
R.G. v. Netherlands 692/2015 06 November 2017
M.S.A. and D.A. v. Canada 711/2015 06 November 2017
K.D.S. v. Canada 597/2014 06 November 2017
E.M. v. Germany 636/2014 06 November 2017
V.K.M. v. Sweden 663/2015 06 November 2017
T.A. and T.F. v. Switzerland 667/2015 06 November 2017
T.K. v. Australia 707/2015 06 November 2017
K.V. v. Australia 714/2015 10 November 2017
H.H. v. Netherlands 781/2016 10 November 2017

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".