Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - New Zealand

List of all final views

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
A v. New Zealand 754/1997 15 July 1999 9(1, 4) No Violation
Buckle v. New Zealand 858/1999 25 October 2000 17, 23 No Violation
Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand 547/1993 27 October 2000 14(1), 27 No Violation
Toala et al. v. New Zealand 675/1995 02 November 2000 12(4), 26 No Violation
Joslin v. New Zealand 902/1999 17 July 2002 16, 17, 23(1,2), 26 No Violation
Sahid v. New Zealand 893/1999 28 March 2003 23(1) No Violation
Rameka v. New Zealand 1090/2002 06 November 2003 9, 9(4), 10(1), 14(2) Violation
E.B. v. New Zealand 1368/2005 16 March 2007 14(1), 17(1), 23(1) Violation
Manuel v. New Zealand 1385/2005 18 October 2007 9(1) No Violation
Dean v. New Zealand 1512/2006 17 March 2009 2(3a), 7, 9(4), 10(1,3), 14(3c, 4, 5 ), 15(1), 26 Violation
Jessop v. New Zealand 1758/2008 29 March 2011 14 (1,3c,e,5) No Violation
Miller et.al. New Zealand 2502/2014 07 November 2017 2, 9, 10, 14 (1) Violation

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".