The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Case Name	Comm Number	Date	Outcome
M.A. v. Canada	22/1995	03 May 1995	Inadmissible
X. v. Canada	26/1995	20 November 1995	Inadmissible
K.K.H. v. Canada	35/1995	22 November 1995	Inadmissible
R.K. v. Canada	42/1996	20 November 1997	Inadmissible
V.V. v. Canada	47/1996	19 May 1998	Inadmissible
P. S. S. v Canada	66/1997	13 November 1998	Inadmissible
Akhimien v. Canada	67/1997	17 November 1998	Inadmissible
P.S. v. Canada	86/1997	18 November 1999	Inadmissible
L.O. v. Canada	95/1997	19 May 2000	Inadmissible
H.A.S.V. and F.O.C. v. Canada	163/2000	24 November 2004	Inadmissible
Aung v. Canada	273/2005	15 May 2006	Inadmissible
R.S.A.N. v. Canada	284/2006	17 November 2006	Inadmissible
L. Z. B. v. Canada	304/2006	08 November 2007	Inadmissible

Information is as of 18 July 2008.

CERD, CCPR, CAT, CEDAW, CMW, Disability Convention and Enforced disappearances Convention 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 and Enforced disappearances Convention complaint mechanisms are not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
decisions to deal jointly with cases
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)
final views.

The Human Rights Committee (under CCPR), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (under CERD), the Committee Against Torture (under CAT) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (under CEDAW) also formally follow up on final Views where a violation has been found. This information is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".