Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CESCR

List of all admissibility decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Outcome
V.T.F. & A.F.L. v. Spain 06/2015 29 April 2015 Inadmissible
L.A.M.C. v. Spain 08/2015 24 September 2015 Inadmissible
F.G.M. et al v. Spain 11/2015 29 February 2016 Inadmissible
A.M.B. v. Ecuador 03/2014 20 June 2016 Inadmissible
E.C.P. et al v. Spain 13/2016 20 June 2016 Inadmissible
J.M.R.H. et al v. Spain 12/2016 20 June 2016 Inadmissible
Merino Sierra et al. v. Spain 04/2014 29 September 2016 Inadmissible
F.M.B. et al. v. Spain 18/2016 22 February 2017 Inadmissible
A. C. G. v. Spain 17/2016 22 February 2017 Inadmissible
F.M.B. et al. v. Spain 18/2016 22 February 2017 Inadmissible
Martins Coelho v. Portugal 021/2017 06 July 2017 Inadmissible
Alarcón Flores et al v. Ecuador 014/2016 04 October 2017 Inadmissible
Arellano Medina v. Ecuador 007/2015 26 March 2018 Inadmissible

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".