The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Case Name	Comm Number	Date	Articles	Outcome
A. T. v. Hungary	2/2003	26 January 2005	2(a,b,e), 5(a), 16	Violation
Szijjarto v. Hungary	4/2004	14 August 2006	10(h), 12, 16(1e)	Violation
Nguyen v. The Netherlands	3/2004	14 August 2006	11(2, 2b)	No Violation
Goekce v. Austria	5/2005	06 August 2007	1, 2(a,c-f), 3	Violation
Yildirim v. Austria	6/2005	06 August 2007	1, 2(a,c-f), 3	Violation
Vertido v. The Philippines	18/2008	16 July 2010	1, 2 (c,f), 5(a)	Violation
V. K. v. Bulgaria	20/2008	25 July 2011	1, 2(c, d, e,f), 5(a), 16 (1)	Violation
Abramova v. Belarus	23/2011	25 July 2011	1, 2(a, b, d, e, f), 3, 5(a)	Violation
Teixeira v. Brazil	17/2008	25 July 2011	1, 2(c, e), 12(1, 2)	Violation

Information is as of 4 January 2012.

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".