A/56/40 (Vol. I)
United Nations
Report
of the Human Rights Committee
Volume I
General Assembly
Paragraphs Page
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter
I. JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES ...................................................... 1 - 48 14
A. States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights ................................................................................. 1 - 7 14
B. Sessions of the Committee ................................................................. 8 14
C. Elections, membership and attendance at sessions ............................. 9 - 10 15
D. Solemn declaration ............................................................................ 11 15
E. Election of officers ......................................................................... 12 - 14 15
F. Special rapporteurs ............................................................................ 15 15
G. Amended consolidated guidelines for States parties'
reports and amended rules of procedure ............................................. 16 16
H. Working groups ............................................................................. 17 - 21 16
I. Commemorative event to mark the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the Covenant................................................................ 22 17
J. Related United Nations human rights activities ................................ 23 - 24 17
K. Meeting with States parties ............................................................ 25 - 27 18
L. Derogations pursuant to article 4 of the Covenant ........................... 28 - 34 19
M. General Comment under article 40, paragraph 4
of the Covenant ................................................................................. 35 20
N. Staff resources ............................................................................... 36 - 38 20
O. Publicity for the work of the Committee .............................................. 39 21
GE.01-44476 (E) 021001
CONTENTS (continued)
Paragraphs Page
Chapter
I. (cont'd)
P. Documents and publications relating to the work of
the Committee ............................................................................... 41 - 45 21
Q. Future meetings of the Committee .................................................. 46 - 47 22
R. Adoption of the report ....................................................................... 48 23
II. METHODS OF WORK OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT: NEW
DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................... 49 - 61 24
A. Recent decisions on procedures ............................................. 50 - 54 24
B. Concluding observations .................................................................... 55 25
C. Links to other human rights treaties and treaty
bodies ........................................................................................... 56 - 58 25
D. Cooperation with other United Nations bodies ............................... 59 - 61 27
III. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT ..................................... 62 - 70 28
A. Reports submitted to the Secretary-General from
August 2000 to July 2001 .................................................................. 63 28
B. Overdue reports and non‑compliance by States parties
with their obligations under article 40 .............................................. 64 - 70 28
IV. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY
STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE
COVENANT ........................................................................................ 71 - 86 31
Trinidad and Tobago .................................................................................. 72 31
Denmark .................................................................................................... 73 34
Argentina ................................................................................................... 74 38
Gabon ....................................................................................................... 75 41
CONTENTS (continued)
Paragraphs Page
Chapter
IV. (cont'd)
Peru ........................................................................................................... 76 45
Venezuela .................................................................................................. 77 49
Dominican Republic ................................................................................... 78 54
Uzbekistan ................................................................................................. 79 59
Croatia ...................................................................................................... 80 65
Syrian Arab Republic ................................................................................. 81 70
Netherlands ............................................................................................... 82 76
Czech Republic .......................................................................................... 83 83
Monaco ..................................................................................................... 84 89
Guatemala .................................................................................................. 85 93
Democratic People's Republic of Korea ..................................................... 86 98
V. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER
THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ............................................................ 87 - 174 105
A. Progress of work ........................................................................... 89 - 96 105
B. Growth of the Committee's caseload under the
Optional Protocol .......................................................................... 97 - 98 107
C. Approaches to considering communications under
the Optional Protocol ..................................................................... 99 - 101 107
D. Individual opinions ....................................................................... 102 - 103 108
E. Review of decisions declaring communications admissible ............. 104 - 106 109
F. Issues considered by the Committee ............................................. 107 - 166 109
G. Remedies called for under the Committee's Views ........................ 167 - 174 129
CONTENTS (continued)
Paragraphs Page
Chapter
VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL
PROTOCOL ....................................................................................... 175 - 202 131
Annexes
I. STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND TO THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS
AND STATES WHICH HAVE MADE THE DECLARATION UNDER
ARTICLE 41 OF THE COVENANT AS AT 27 JULY 2001 .................................... 147
A. States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ................ 147
B. States parties to the Optional Protocol ................................................................. 151
C. States parties to the Second Optional Protocol, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty ............................................................................................. 154
D. States which have made the declaration under article 41 of the Covenant .............. 156
II. MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE, 2000-2001 ........................................................................................ 159
A. Membership of the Human Rights Committee ...................................................... 159
B. Officers .............................................................................................................. 161
III. A. CONSOLIDATED GUIDELINES FOR STATE REPORTS UNDER
THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS (as amended at the seventieth session) ............................. 162
B. REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE
(as formally amended at the seventy-first session) ................................................. 168
IV. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY
STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT ........................... 193
V. STATUS OF REPORTS CONSIDERED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER
REVIEW AND OF REPORTS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ............................................................................................................ 199
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annex
VI. GENERAL COMMENT ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ............. 202
General Comment No. 29 on article 4 .......................................................................... 202
VII. LIST OF STATES PARTIES' DELEGATIONS THAT PARTICIPATED
IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE REPORTS BY
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE AT ITS SEVENTIETH,
SEVENTY-FIRST AND SEVENTY-SECOND SESSIONS .................................... 210
VIII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ............... 216
IX. EXCERPTS FROM THE COMMITTEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE
WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE................ 220
X. VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5,
PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
A. Communication No. 547/1993, Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand
(Views adopted on 27 October 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
B. Communication No. 630/1995, Mazou v. Cameroon
(Views adopted on 26 July 2001, seventy-second session)
C. Communication No. 675/1995, Toala et al. v. New Zealand
(Views adopted on 2 November 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
D. Communication No. 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia
(Views adopted on 3 April 2001, seventy-first session)
Appendix
E. Communication No. 727/1996, Paraga v. Croatia
(Views adopted on 4 April 2001, seventy-first session)
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annex
X. (cont'd)
F. Communication No. 736/1997, Ross v. Canada
(Views adopted on 18 October 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
G. Communication No. 790/1997, Cheban v. The Russian Federation
(Views adopted on 24 July 2001, seventy-second session)
H. Communication No. 806/1998, Thompson v. St. Vincent and the
Grenadines (Views adopted on 18 October 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
I. Communication No. 818/1998, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
J. Communication No. 819/1998, Kavanagh v. Ireland
(Views adopted on 4 April 2001, seventy-first session)
K. Communication No. 821/1998, Chongwe v. Zambia
(Views adopted on 25 October 2000, seventieth session)
L. Communication No. 833/1998, Karker v. France
(Views adopted on 26 October 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
M. Communication No. 839/1998, 840/1998 and 841/1998
Mansaraj et al. v. Sierra Leone, Gborie et al. v. Sierra Leone,
Sesay et al. v. Sierra Leone
(Views adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
N. Communication No. 846/1999, Jansen-Gielen v. the Netherlands
(Views adopted on 3 April 2001, seventy-first session)
Appendix
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annex
X. (cont'd)
O. Communication No. 855/1999, Schmitz-de-Jong v. the Netherlands
(Views adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
P. Communication No. 857/1999, Blazek et al. v. the Czech Republic
(Views adopted on 12 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
Q. Communication No. 858/1999, Buckle v. New Zealand
(Views adopted on 25 October 2000, seventieth session)
R. Communication No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines
(Views adopted on 19 October 2000, seventieth session)
Appendix
S. Communication No. 884/1999, Ignatane v. Latvia
(Views adopted on 25 July 2001, seventy-second session)
T. Communication No. 930/2000, Winata v. Australia
(Views adopted on 26 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
XI. DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DECLARING
COMMUNICATIONS INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE OPTIONAL
PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
A. Communication No. 762/1997, Jensen v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 22 March 2001, seventy-first session)
B. Communication No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius
(Decision adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annex
XI. (cont'd)
C. Communication No. 791/1997, Singh v. New Zealand
(Decision adopted on 12 July 2001, seventy-second session)
D. Communication No. 808/1998, Rogl v. Germany
(Decision adopted on 25 October 2000, seventieth session)
E. Communication No. 822/1998, Vakoumé v. France
(Decision adopted on 31 October 2000, seventieth session)
F. Communication No. 831/1998, Meiers v. France
(Decision adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
G. Communication No. 832/1998, Walravens v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 25 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
H. Communication No. 834/1998, Kehler v. Germany
(Decision adopted on 22 March 2001, seventy-first session)
I. Communication No. 866/1999, Torregrosa Lafuente et al. v. Spain
(Decision adopted on 16 July 2001, seventy-second session)
Appendix
J. Communication No. 905/2000, Asensio López v. Spain
(Decision adopted on 23 July 2001, seventy-second session)
K. Communication No. 935/2000, Mahmoud v. Slovakia
(Decision adopted on 23 July 2001, seventy-second session)
L. Communication No. 947/2000, Hart v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 25 October 2000, seventieth session)
M. Communication No. 948/2000, Devgan v. Canada,
(Decision adopted on 30 October 2000, seventieth session)
N. Communication No. 949/2000, Keshavjee v. Canada
(Decision adopted on 2 November 2000, seventieth session)
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annex
XI. (cont'd)
O. Communication No. 952/2000, Parun and Bulmer v. New Zealand
(Decision adopted on 22 March 2001, seventy-first session)
P. Communication No. 963/2001, Uebergang v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 22 March 2001, seventy-first session)
Q. Communication No. 991/2001, Neremberg v. Germany
(Decision adopted 27 July 2001, seventy-second session)
The present annual report covers the period from 1 August 2000 to 31 July 2001 and the seventieth, seventy-first and seventy-second sessions of the Committee. Since the adoption of the last report, three States (Bangladesh, Botswana and Ghana) have become parties to the Covenant, three States (Ghana, Lesotho and Guatemala) have become parties to the Optional Protocol and one State (Bosnia and Herzegovina) has become a party to the Second Optional Protocol, thus bringing the total of States parties to these instruments to 148, 98 and 45, respectively.
Six new members were elected to the Committee at the Twentieth Meeting of States parties to the Covenant on 14 September 2000. On 19 March 2001, Mr. P.N. Bhagwati was elected Chairperson of the Committee for a period of two years. Messrs. A. Amor, D. Kretzmer and H. Solari-Yrigoyen were elected Vice-Chairpersons and Mr. E. Klein Rapporteur.
During the period under review, the Committee considered 15 initial and periodic reports under article 40 and adopted concluding observations on them (seventieth session: Trinidad and Tobago, Denmark, Argentina, Gabon and Peru; seventy-first session: Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Uzbekistan, Croatia and Syrian Arab Republic; seventy-second session: Netherlands, Czech Republic, Monaco, Guatemala and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Under the Optional Protocol procedure, it adopted 22 Views on communications, declared 7 communications admissible and 17 inadmissible. Consideration of 9 communications was discontinued without the Committee adopting a formal decision on the matter (see chapter IV for concluding observations, chapter V for information on Optional Protocol decisions).
In July 2001, the one thousandth individual communication was registered under the Optional Protocol. The number of communications to be registered under this procedure will in all likelihood grow considerably over the next few years, as the number of States parties to the Optional Protocol continues to grow and the procedure becomes better known.
At the seventieth session of the Committee, the High Commissioner for Human Rights informed the Committee of the launch of a plan of action for three treaty bodies, including the Committee, and the establishment of a petitions team, designed to provide better services to individual human rights complaints procedures, including the procedure under the Optional Protocol. The Petitions Team has since become operational and the Committee has expressed the hope that once it has consolidated its working methods, this team will help reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the existing backlog in the examination of communications under the Optional Protocol (see chapter I, paragraphs 37-39).
Through its Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views, the Committee has continued to seek to ensure implementation of its Views by States parties by arranging meetings with representatives of States parties which have not responded to the Committee's request for information about the measures taken to give effect to its Views, or which have given unsatisfactory replies to the Committee's request. However, follow-up missions to the States parties concerned could not be conducted, owing to lack of funds (see Chapter VI, paragraph 203).
On 24 July 2001 (seventy-second session), the Committee adopted General Comment No. 29 [72] on article 4 of the Covenant, concerning derogations from provisions of the Covenant in times of public emergency (see annex VI).
In its resolution 2000/14 of 17 April 2000, the Commission on Human Rights invited the Human Rights Committee to submit a contribution to the preparatory process for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. In the summer and autumn of 2000, the Committee discussed and finalized its contribution to the preparations for the World Conference. The resulting document was made available to the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference in May 2001 (see chapter I, section J and annex IX).
For several years, the Committee has been seeking to deal with the situation of States which have failed to honour their reporting obligations under article 40 of the Covenant or which have repeatedly failed to appear before the Committee although the examination of their report had been scheduled. The Committee has decided that it may examine the application of the Covenant in those States parties that have failed to report to the Committee in spite of repeated reminders, and examine the reports of States which fail to appear before the Committee. The Committee has also introduced a procedure for follow-up to concluding observations on State reports adopted by the Committee (see chapter II, paragraphs 51 and 52).
During its seventieth session, on 30 October 2000, the Committee organized its first official consultative meeting with States parties. The meeting provided an opportunity to engage in an exchange of views on current problems with regard to, and ways of improving, the reporting and the Optional Protocol procedures; avoidance of duplication with the work of other treaty bodies; cooperation with other treaty bodies on issues of common concern; and the problem of adequate resourcing for Committee activities.
On 26 March 2001, the Committee held a special commemorative meeting to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Covenant. The Committee Chairperson and two former Committee Chairpersons traced the Committee's continuously evolving role in the United Nations human rights treaty system and its contribution to the development of international law. Other Committee members made presentations on the Committee's relations with States parties under the reporting procedure, the Committee's contribution to an emerging universal human rights jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol procedure, and the importance of the contribution of non-governmental organizations to the Committee's activities. Representatives of several non-governmental organizations participated in the event (see chapter I, section I).
1. As at 27 July 2001, the closing date of the seventy-second session of the Human Rights Committee, there were 148 States parties1 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 98 States parties to the (first) Optional Protocol to the Covenant2 Both instruments have been in force since 23 March 1976.
2. Since the last report Bangladesh, Botswana and Ghana have become parties to the Covenant.
3. Since the last report three more States have ratified the Optional Protocol, Ghana, Guatemala and Lesotho, thus bringing the number of States parties to 98.
4. As at 27 July 2001 there was no change in the number of States (47) which had made the declaration envisaged under article 41, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In this respect, the Committee appeals to States parties to make the declaration under article 41 of the Covenant and to use this mechanism, with a view to making more effective the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant.
5. The Second Optional Protocol, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, entered into force on 11 July 1991. As at 27 July 2001, there were 45 States parties to this Protocol, an increase of one since the Committee's last report: Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6. A list of States parties to the Covenant and to the two Optional Protocols, indicating those States which have made the declaration under article 41, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, is contained in annex I to the present report.
7. Reservations and other declarations made by a number of States parties in respect of the Covenant and/or the Optional Protocols are set out in the notifications deposited with the Secretary-General. The Committee notes with regret that no reservations to the Covenant were withdrawn during the reporting period and encourages States parties to consider the possibility of withdrawing reservations to the Covenant.
8. The Human Rights Committee has held three sessions since the adoption of its previous annual report. The seventieth session (1868th to 1896th meetings) was held at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 16 October to 3 November 2000, the seventy‑first session (1897th to 1926th meetings) was held at United Nations Headquarters from 19 March to 6 April 2001 and the seventy-second session (1927th to 1955th meetings) was held at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 9 to 27 July 2001.
9. At the Twentieth Meeting of States Parties to the Covenant, held at United Nations Headquarters on 14 September 2000, Mr. Maurice Glèlè Ahanhanzo (Benin), Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada (Colombia), Sir Nigel Rodley (United Kingdom), Mr. Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt), Mr. Ivan Shearer (Australia) and Mr. Patrick Vella (Malta) were elected to the seats left vacant by the expiration of the mandates of Viscount Colville of Culross, Ms. Elizabeth Evatt, Ms. Pilar Gaitán de Pombo, Mr. Fausto Pocar, Mr. Roman Wieruszewski and Mr. Abdallah Zakhia. Messrs. Rajsoomer Lallah, Martin Scheinin and Maxwell Yalden were re‑elected to the Committee for a term of four years.
10. Seventeen members of the Committee participated in the seventieth session. All the members of the Committee participated in the seventy-first and seventy-second sessions.
11. At the 1897th meeting (seventy-first session), on 19 March 2001, Mr. Glèlè Ahanhanzo, Mr. Khalil, Mr. Rivas Posada, Sir Nigel Rodley, Mr. Shearer and Mr. Vella made a solemn declaration in accordance with article 38 of the Covenant and rule 16 of the Committee's rules of procedure before assuming their functions.
12. During the seventieth session in October-November 2000, the members of the Bureau remained those listed in the annual report for 2000 (see A/55/40, volume I, chapter I, section E).
13. The members of the Bureau, elected at the Committee's 1897th meeting (seventy‑first session), for a term of two years, in accordance with article 39, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, are the following:
Chairperson: Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati
Vice-Chairpersons: Mr. Abdelfattah Amor
Mr. David Kretzmer
Mr. Hipólito Solari-Yrigoyen
Rapporteur: Mr. Eckart Klein
14. During the Committee's seventieth to seventy-second sessions, the Bureau held nine meetings (three per session) with interpretation. At its first meeting during the seventy‑first session, the Bureau decided to record its decisions in formal minutes, to be kept as a record of all decisions taken by the Committee's Bureau.
15. The Special Rapporteur on follow-up of Views, Ms. Christine Chanet, met with representatives of the Netherlands, Peru and Austria during the seventieth session. During the seventy‑first session Ms. Chanet met with representatives of Nicaragua, Madagascar, Togo, Suriname and Zambia. She presented a report on her follow-up activities to the Committee at its seventy‑first session. Also at the seventy-first session, Ms. Chanet's mandate came to an end and the Committee designated Mr. Nisuke Ando as the new Special Rapporteur on follow-up of Views. During the seventy-second session, Mr. Ando met with representatives of Zambia. The Special Rapporteur on new communications, Mr. David Kretzmer, continued his functions until the start of the seventy-first session, registered 32 communications, transmitted these communications to the States parties concerned and issued two decisions on interim measures of protection pursuant to rule 86 of the Committee's rules of procedure. At the beginning of the seventy-first session, Mr. Kretzmer's mandate came to an end and the Committee designated Mr. Martin Scheinin as the Committee's new Special Rapporteur for new communications. Up to the end of the seventy-second session, Mr. Scheinin had registered 31 communications, transmitted these to the State party concerned and issued 4 decisions on interim measures of protection under rule 86 of the Committee's rules of procedure.
16. During its sixty-seventh session, the Committee adopted the revised consolidated guidelines for State reports (CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev.1, annex III to the Committee's annual report for the year 2000 (A/55/40, vol. I)). As a result of the proposals emanating from a working group of the Committee which met during the sixty-eighth and sixty-ninth sessions and which discussed proposed amendments to the Committee's rules of procedure in respect of the reporting procedure, the Guidelines were once again modified during the seventieth session, and were reissued as document CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev.2 on 26 February 2001 (see annex III.A to the present report). The revised Guidelines are reproduced in the compendium of reporting guidelines of all human rights treaty bodies (HRI/GEN/2/Rev.1 of 9 May 2001). The Committee's rules of procedure were revised accordingly during the seventieth and seventy‑first sessions (see annex III.B).
17. In accordance with rule 62 and rule 89 of its rules of procedure, the Committee established working groups which met before each of its three sessions. Working groups were entrusted with the task of making recommendations (a) regarding communications received under the Optional Protocol; and (b) for the purposes of article 40, including the preparation of lists of issues concerning the initial or periodic reports scheduled for consideration by the Committee. An ad hoc working group was mandated to prepare the Committee's contributions to the World Conference against Racism, to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 31 August to 7 September 2001.
18. Representatives of specialized agencies and subsidiary bodies of the United Nations, particularly the International Labour Organization, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Health Organization, provided advance information on the reports to be considered by the Committee. The working groups also considered oral and written presentations by representatives of non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, PEN International, the International Service for Human Rights, the International League for Human Rights, the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights and several national human rights non-governmental organizations. The Committee welcomed the increasing interest shown by and the participation of these agencies and organizations and thanked them for the information provided.
19. Seventieth session (9-13 October 2000): a combined working group on communications and article 40 was composed of Mr. Amor, Ms. Evatt, Mr. Bhagwati, Viscount Colville of Culross and Mr. Solari-Yrigoyen. Mr. Amor was elected Chairperson-Rapporteur.
20. Seventy-first session (12-16 March 2001): a combined working group on communications and article 40 was composed of Mr. Amor, Mr. Ando, Mr. Bhagwati, Mr. Henkin, Mr. Klein, Mr. Solari-Yrigoyen and Mr. Yalden; Mr. Ando was elected Chairperson‑Rapporteur.
21. Seventy-second session (2-6 July 2001): the working group on communications and article 40 was composed of Mr. Bhagwati (as of 3 July 2001), Ms Chanet, Mr. Henkin, Mr. Khalil, Mr. Kretzmer, Ms. Medina Quiroga, Mr. Rivas Posada, Mr. Solari-Yrigoyen and Mr. Yalden. It decided to divide its activities: Mr. Kretzmer was elected Chairperson‑Rapporteur of a working group on communications; Mr. Yalden was elected Chairperson-Rapporteur of a working group on article 40.
22. During its seventy-first session, on 26 March 2001, the Committee held a commemorative meeting to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Covenant. The High Commissioner for Human Rights transmitted a message of congratulations to the Committee. The Committee Chairperson and two former Chairpersons, Ambassador Andreas Mavrommatis and Judge Fausto Pocar, addressed the Committee's ever more complex functions, its continuously evolving role in the United Nations human rights treaty system, and its contribution to the development of international law, especially in the areas of reservations and State succession. Mr. Henkin underlined the role of States parties in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. Ms. Chanet addressed the development of the Committee's role under article 40 of the Covenant and its relations with States parties; Mr. Scheinin commented on the Committee's contribution to an emerging universal human rights jurisprudence, through its decisions and Views adopted under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant; and Ms. Medina Quiroga highlighted the importance of the contribution of non‑governmental organizations and civil society to the Committee's work. Representatives of several non-governmental organizations and civil society in turn expressed their appreciation of the Committee's work in promoting respect for civil and political rights at the international and local levels.
23. At all of its sessions, the Committee was informed about activities of United Nations bodies dealing with human rights issues. In particular, the relevant general comments and concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Committee against Torture were made available to the members of the Human Rights Committee. Relevant developments in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights were also discussed. The High Commissioner for Human Rights addressed the Committee at its seventieth session and explained the creation and objectives of the Petitions Team. The Deputy High Commissioner addressed the Committee at its seventy-second session.
24. In March 2000, on the occasion of the International Day against Racism, the Commission on Human Rights invited the Committee to contribute to the preparatory process of the World Conference against Racism and Xenophobia. The Committee established a working group which, by drawing primarily on a draft and contribution prepared by Ms. Evatt, was able to finalize the Committee's contribution to the second session of the Preparatory Committee (May‑June 2001) and to the Conference itself by the end of the seventieth session. The Committee thereupon formally adopted the document as its contribution to the Conference. The contribution is reproduced in its essential parts in annex IX. The Committee's designated representative to the second session of the Preparatory Committee, Mr. Solari-Yrigoyen, attended the regional preparatory meeting for the Conference in Santiago de Chile in November 2000, as well as the second session of the Preparatory Committee. He made presentations at both meetings on the Committee's behalf and provided written and oral briefs on both meetings to the Committee. During the Conference, the Committee will be represented by its Chairperson, Mr. Bhagwati, by Mr. Solari-Yrigoyen and by Mr. Lallah.
25. During its seventieth session, on 30 October 2000, the Committee held a meeting with representatives of States parties to the Covenant. The meeting was called with a view to exchanging ideas on how the Committee's work could be made more efficient in a way that is positive for the Committee, for States parties and for the persons enjoying the rights enshrined in the Covenant. It was attended by 55 representatives of States parties and observers. Principal subjects of discussions included:
(a) Current difficulties with the country reporting process and possible solutions;
(b) Minimizing duplication and overlap with the activities of other treaty bodies in the consideration of reports;
(c) Cross-cutting issues of relevance to all treaty bodies and the importance of the meeting of Chairpersons;
(d) Current difficulties with the Optional Protocol procedure and possible solutions;
(e) The need for better resourcing of the Committee's activities;
(f) Improving opportunities for dialogue between States parties and the Committee.
26. State party representatives noted with appreciation that the meeting provided a timely forum for an exchange of views concerning the Committee's procedures and issues affecting the work of treaty bodies in general. Cooperation between States parties, the Committee and non‑governmental organizations was discussed and encouraged.
27. The Committee is encouraged by the results of the first consultation with States parties. On 26 July 2001, it decided to organize a similar consultation during its seventy-sixth session, in October 2002. The Committee would welcome suggestions from States parties for further subjects of discussion.
28. Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant stipulates that in time of public emergency States parties may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant. Pursuant to paragraph 2, no derogation is allowed from articles 6, 7, 8 (paras. 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18. Pursuant to paragraph 3, any derogation must be immediately notified to the States parties through the intermediary of the Secretary‑General. A further notification is required upon the termination of the derogation.
29. In cases of derogation, the Committee considers whether the State party has satisfied the conditions of article 4 of the Covenant and, in particular, insists that the derogation be terminated as soon as possible. When faced with situations of armed conflict, both external and internal, which affect States parties to the Covenant, the Committee will necessarily examine whether these States parties are complying with all of their Covenant obligations. On the interpretation of article 4 of the Covenant, reference is made to the Committee's practice under the reporting and Optional Protocol procedures. The Committee's General Comment No. 29, adopted during the seventy-second session, establishes guidelines that States parties are required to respect during a state of emergency (see annex VI to the present report).
30. For States parties to the Covenant, the continued practice of derogations has frequently been a subject of dialogue in the context of the consideration of State party reports under article 40 of the Covenant, and has as often been identified as a matter of concern in concluding observations, including some of those adopted during the reporting period. While not questioning the right of States parties to derogate from certain obligations in states of emergency, in conformity with article 4 of the Covenant, the Committee always urges States parties to withdraw the derogations as soon as possible.
31. For States parties to the Optional Protocol, the Committee has considered derogations in the context of the consideration of individual communications. The Committee has consistently given a strict interpretation to derogations, and in some cases has determined that notwithstanding the derogation the State was responsible for violations of the Covenant.
32. During the period under review, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified other States parties through the intermediary of the Secretary‑General, on 20 February 2001, that it had terminated the United Kingdom's derogation from article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant with effect from 26 February 2001. It specified, however, that that termination of the derogation only applied to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was not yet possible to terminate the derogation in respect of the Crown Dependencies, i.e. Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The latter were actively considering enacting or amending their current prevention of terrorism legislation so as to reflect the changes in the United Kingdom legislation made under the Terrorism Act 2000.
33. Also during the period under review, the Government of Ecuador notified other States parties, through the intermediary of the Secretary‑General, on 21 February 2001, pursuant to article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, that a state of emergency had been declared for the entire territory of the Republic by Executive Decree No. 1214 of 2 February 2001; the said Decree stipulated that the measure was being adopted to overcome the adverse consequences of the economic crisis affecting Ecuador, which had created a situation of serious internal unrest, and that the provisions of the Covenant derogated from were articles 12, 17 and 21. By Decree No. 1228 of 9 February 2001, the State of emergency was lifted.
34. On 27 July 2001, the Government of Guatemala notified other States parties, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General and in accordance with article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, of temporary derogation from the rights enshrined in articles 6, 9 and 26 of the Constitution of Guatemala. The said derogation had been promulgated by Government Decree 2-2001 on 17 July 2001, was valid until 19 August 2001 and was applicable throughout the territory of the Republic. The State party justified the temporary derogation by the escape, from a maximum security prison, of 78 prisoners considered to be extremely dangerous, in whose trials a large number of Guatemalan citizens were involved as witnesses or against whom many citizens had filed complaints. Those citizens were said to be subject to threats and intimidation by the escaped prisoners.
35. At its sixty-sixth session, Mr. Martin Scheinin submitted a draft general comment on article 4, which was discussed from the sixty-seventh to the seventy-second sessions. Upon conclusion of the second reading of the draft general comment, the Committee established a working group to check the consistency of the English, French and Spanish language versions of the draft. At its 1950th meeting on 24 July 2001 (seventy-second session), the Committee adopted General Comment No. 29 on derogations from the provisions of the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11), which is reproduced as annex VI to the present report.
36. During its sixty-seventh session, in October 1999, the Committee welcomed the commitment expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Mary Robinson, to improve the staff situation referred to by the Committee in past annual reports. The High Commissioner addressed the Committee during the seventieth session and informed it of the launch of the Plan of Action for three Geneva-based treaty bodies, including the Committee, and the establishment of a petitions team designed to provide better service to individual human rights complaints procedures, including the procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
37. The Committee welcomed the launch of the Plan of Action and the creation of a petitions team, and noted that the recruitment of three consultants for the petitions team and the addition of two junior Professional officers for the reporting procedure and the petitions team would go a long way to redressing the situation of serious understaffing previously noted by the Committee. It further noted with appreciation that a newly established post for communications had been filled. The Committee is confident that these developments will help it address, and ultimately eliminate, the serious backlog in the examination of communications, and that they will result in the provision of better services to the Committee. It notes that, in comparison to previous years, the backlog of communications has already been reduced considerably, and that the lead time between the receipt and the processing of communications has been shortened from as much as a year in isolated cases to several weeks.
38. While the Committee is encouraged by the initial results of the Plan of Action and the work of the petitions team, it reiterates the need for sufficient experienced Professional and other staff to be allocated to all aspects of its work. As the Plan of Action depends on extrabudgetary contributions made by donors, its time-frame may be finite. Ultimately, only the provision of additional established posts will guarantee the Committee's ability to discharge itself properly and in a timely way of all of its mandated functions.
39. The Chairperson, accompanied by members of the Bureau, met with representatives of the press at all of the Committee's three sessions. The Committee notes that with the exception of academic institutions (see paragraph 45 below), awareness of its activities still leaves much to be desired, and that publicity must be enhanced to reinforce the protection mechanisms under the Covenant.
40. The Committee continued to be concerned about the difficulties it faced in regard to the late issuance of Committee documents, particularly reports by States parties, as a consequence of delays in editing and translation. In this connection the Committee noted that pursuant to its recommendation, made during its sixty-sixth session, reports of States parties, whenever possible, are now being submitted for translation without editing, and that this new practice has reduced the delay in issuing reports.
41. The Committee noted further that the summary records of the Committee's meetings were issued only after considerable delay; summary records of the meetings held in New York were sometimes issued after a lapse of almost two years.
42. In past annual reports, the Committee repeatedly urged that the publication of volumes 3 and 4 of the Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol be undertaken as a matter of priority. This was also requested as part of the Plan of Action. The Committee appreciates that work has been undertaken in the Secretariat with a view to publication of volumes 3 and 4, but
notes with concern that those volumes have still not been issued, primarily owing to technical and financial constraints. It hopes and urges that publication will be pursued as a matter of priority.
43. The Committee reiterated its concern over the discontinuation of the publication of Official Records after 1991-1992, and noted with regret that resources had not been made available for the publication of further volumes. This matter was also addressed in the Plan of Action.
44. The Committee had ascertained that the documentary records which had not yet appeared in the Official Records were not all available on the Web site of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee asked that urgent efforts be made to ensure that all material not yet published in the Official Records be put on the OHCHR Web site. It asked that the summary records include the lists of issues in relation to the discussion of States parties' reports.
45. The Committee welcomes the publication of its Optional Protocol decisions in the databases of various universities, including the University of Minnesota, United States of America (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/undocs.htm), and the publication of a case-law digest on the Committee's jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol by the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands (SIM Documentation Site, http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/Dochome.nsf). Moreover, the Committee notes with satisfaction that its work is becoming better known thanks to initiatives taken by the United Nations Development Programme and the Department for Public Information. The Committee also appreciates the growing interest in its work shown by universities and other institutions of higher learning. It recommends that the treaty body database of the Web site of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (www.unhchr.ch) be upgraded regularly, and that all of the Committee's Views and inadmissibility decisions under the Optional Protocol available in electronic format be included in that database.
46. At its seventy-first session, the Committee confirmed the following schedule of meetings for 2002 and 2003. The seventy-fourth session will be held at United Nations Headquarters from 18 March to 5 April 2002, the seventy-fifth session at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 8 to 26 July 2002, the seventy-sixth session at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 14 October to 1 November 2002, the seventy-seventh session at United Nations Headquarters from 17 March to 4 April 2003 and the seventy-eighth session at the United Nations Office at Geneva from 14 July to 1 August 2003.
47. On 27 July 2001, the Committee decided to request an additional week of meetings for its seventy-fifth session, to be held in July 2002. It proposed that the additional meetings be held from 29 July to 2 August 2001. In accordance with rule 27 of the Committee's rules of procedure, the Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to the financial implications of this decision.
48. At its 1950th and 1951st meetings, held on 24 July 2001, the Committee considered the draft of its twenty-fifth annual report, covering its activities at its seventieth, seventy-first and seventy-second sessions, held in 2000 and 2001. The report, as amended in the course of the discussion, was adopted unanimously. By virtue of Economic and Social Council decision 1985/105 of 8 February 1985, the Council authorized the Secretary‑General to transmit the Committee's annual report directly to the General Assembly.
49. The present chapter summarizes and explains the modifications recently introduced by the Committee to its working methods under article 40 of the Covenant.
50. At its sixty-fifth session in March 1999, the Committee decided that the lists of issues for the examination of States parties' reports should henceforth be adopted at the session prior to the examination of the report, thereby allowing a period of at least two months for States parties to prepare for the discussion with the Committee. Central to the consideration of States parties reports is the oral hearing, where the delegations of States parties have the opportunity to answer specific questions from Committee members. Thus, States parties are encouraged to use the list of issues better to prepare for a constructive discussion, but are not expected to submit written answers. This new practice was put into effect at the sixty-sixth session, at which the lists of issues for the sixty-seventh session were adopted. There has been some progress with the implementation of the new practice; the Committee, however, notes that if States parties do submit written answers to lists of issues, they should do so well in advance of the examination of the report, to ensure that the translation of the replies into the Committee's working languages is produced in time.
51. In October 1999, the Committee adopted new consolidated guidelines on State parties' reports, which replaced all prior guidelines and are designed to facilitate the preparation of initial and periodic reports by States parties (see also paragraph 16 above). The guidelines provide for comprehensive initial reports, prepared on an article-by-article basis, and focused periodic reports geared primarily to the Committee's concluding observations on the previous report of the State party concerned. In their periodic reports, States parties need not report on every single article of the Covenant, but only on those provisions identified by the Committee in its concluding observations and those articles in respect of which there have been significant developments since the submission of the previous report. These consolidated guidelines were once again modified during the seventieth session (October 2000) on the basis of proposals made by a working group of the Committee mandated to review the Committee's working methods under article 40 of the Covenant. The revised consolidated guidelines have been issued as document CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev.2, dated 26 February 2001 (see annex III.A).
52. During the sixty-eighth, sixty-ninth and seventieth sessions of the Committee, a working group composed of Ms. Chanet, Viscount Colville of Culross, Mr. Klein (Chair) and Mr. Yalden discussed possible ways of improving, and making more effective, the Committee's reporting procedure under article 40. This working group proposed relevant amendments to the Committee's rules of procedure, which were discussed by the Committee plenary in detail during the seventieth session. The amendments, which concern primarily the State reporting procedure, are aimed at reducing the reporting burden on States parties and designed to simplify the procedure.
53. The amendments introduce procedures for dealing with situations where States parties have failed to honour their reporting obligations over several reporting cycles, or request a postponement of their scheduled appearance before the Committee at short notice. In both situations, the Committee may henceforth serve notice on the States concerned that it intends to examine, on the basis of material available to it, the measures adopted by that State party with a view to giving effect to the provisions of the Covenant, even in the absence of a report. The amended rules of procedure also introduce a follow-up procedure to the concluding observations of the Committee: rather than a set time limit for the submission of its next report being established in the last paragraph of the concluding observations, the State party will be requested to report back to the Committee within a specified period with responses to the Committee's recommendations, indicating what steps, if any, it has taken to meet the recommendations. Such responses will thereafter be examined by a group of Committee members, and result in the determination by the plenary of the Committee of a definitive time limit for the submission of the next report.
54. Another working group appointed by the Committee and composed of Ms. Chanet, Mr. Klein (Chair), Sir Nigel Rodley and Mr. Yalden made several further proposals for amendments of the rules of procedure during the seventy-first session. The amendments to the rules were formally adopted at the Committee's 1924th meeting, during the seventy-first session. The revised rules of procedure have been issued as document CCPR/C/3/Rev.6 and Corr.1; they are reproduced in annex III.B to the present report. All States parties to the Covenant have been informed of the amendments to the rules of procedure; the Committee has applied the revised rules since the end of the seventy-first session.
55. Since its decision of 24 March 1992, taken at its 1123rd meeting, the Committee has been adopting concluding observations. The Committee takes the concluding observations as a starting point in the preparation of the list of issues for the examination of the subsequent report of a State party. In some cases the Committee has received comments from the State party, which are issued in document form. During the period under review such comments were received from Trinidad and Tobago and the Syrian Arab Republic. These State party replies have been issued as documents and are available with the Committee's secretariat, or may be consulted on the Web site of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
56. The Committee continues to find value in the meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies as a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on procedures and logistical problems, particularly the need for sufficient services to enable the various treaty bodies to carry out their respective mandates.
57. Mr. Bhagwati, the Chairperson of the Committee, participated in the 13th meeting of treaty body chairpersons, held in Geneva from 18 to 22 June 2001. The outcome of the 13th meeting was discussed at the seventy-second session. Among the matters discussed were:
(a) The issue of staff resources;
(b) The issue of better coordination of activities among treaty bodies and with the special procedures mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights;
(c) The issue of follow-up to concluding observations on initial or periodic State party reports;
(d) The desirability of an inter-Committee meeting;
(e) The future of the Global Plan of Action for the strengthening of the United Nations human rights treaty body system.
58. In their recommendations, the Chairpersons:
(a) Recommended that the practice of holding an informal meeting with representatives of States parties should be continued at the fourteenth meeting, in 2002;
(b) Recommended that treaty body chairpersons should attend meetings of the United Nations organs to which their reports are submitted at the time that their reports are being considered. They requested the Office of the High Commissioner to provide funding to implement that decision;
(c) Agreed that a first inter-Committee meeting be convened on the subjects of methods of work and reservations to the human rights treaties. The secretariat was requested to organize a four-day meeting. Each Committee should, as far as possible, be represented by its Chairperson and two other members;
(d) Recommended that all the treaty bodies should consider ways of strengthening collaboration with the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights;
(e) Reaffirmed the need for improving collaboration and the exchange of information between treaty bodies and the special procedures mandates of the Commission on Human Rights. The following recommendations to this effect, were made, inter alia:
(f) Lastly, the Chairpersons agreed that the next joint meeting with special procedures mandate holders, in June 2002, should be devoted in part to a joint discussion of the role of the human rights mechanisms in the follow-up to the World Conference against Racism.
59. In 1999, the Committee considered its participation in the initiative emerging from the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Development Programme on cooperation over a wide range of human rights issues and activities. The Committee welcomed the fact that, in its development programmes, and in particular those relating to technical assistance, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) took account of the Committee's conclusions arising from its consideration of State party reports. While the indicators, i.e. quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing compliance by States parties with the provisions of human rights treaties and for a State party's capacity for good governance, did not as yet include many rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee intended to play its part in refining and developing those indicators, so that United Nations resources may be more effectively targeted.
60. On 2 April 2001, the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr. Bhagwati, addressed a letter to the Administrator of UNDP, reiterating his request for continued UNDP contribution to the elaboration of lists of issues on initial and/or periodic State party reports.
61. From 25 to 27 June 2001, Mr. Bhagwati and Ms. Medina Quiroga participated in the International Workshop on the Application of Human Rights to Reproductive and Sexual Health, organized jointly by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Population Fund, in Geneva. Mr. Bhagwati and Ms. Medina Quiroga briefed the Committee on the conduct and recommendations of the Workshop during the seventy‑second session.
62. Under article 2, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, each State party undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant. In connection with this provision, article 40, paragraph 1, of the Covenant requires States parties to submit reports on the measures adopted and the progress achieved in the enjoyment of the various rights and on any factors and difficulties that may affect the implementation of the Covenant. States parties undertake to submit reports within one year of the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party concerned and, thereafter whenever the Committee so requests. Under the Committee's current guidelines, adopted at the sixty-sixth session and amended at the seventieth session (CCPR/C/GUI/66/Rev.2), the five-year periodicity in reporting, which the Committee had established at its thirteenth session in July 1981 (see CCPR/C/19/Rev.1), has now been replaced by a more flexible system whereby the date for the submission by a State party of its subsequent periodic report is set on a case-by-case basis at the end of the Committee's concluding observations on any report under article 40. This system has been applied to all reports examined during the Committee's seventy-first and seventy-second sessions.
63. During the period covered by the present report, eight initial or periodic reports were submitted to the Secretary-General: one initial report was submitted by the Republic of Moldova; two second periodic reports were submitted, by Viet Nam and Georgia; two third periodic reports were submitted, by Togo and Yemen; two fourth periodic reports were submitted, by New Zealand and Hungary; and one fifth periodic report was submitted by Sweden.
64. States parties to the Covenant must submit the reports referred to in article 40 of the Covenant on time so that the Committee can duly perform its functions under that article. Those reports are the basis for the discussion between the Committee and States parties on the human rights situation in States parties. Regrettably, serious delays have been noted since the establishment of the Committee.
65. The Committee is faced not only with a problem of overdue reports, but also with a backlog of reports already received but not yet considered, which has continued to grow notwithstanding the Committee's new guidelines and other significant improvements in the Committee's working methods. With a view to reducing this backlog, the Committee has decided to consider some periodic reports together even if they were issued as separate documents. It did so in July 2000 for the third and fourth periodic reports of Australia. In the same vein and for the same reason, the Committee has accepted the submission of periodic reports which combined two overdue reports in a single document. It did so for the combined third and fourth report of Trinidad and Tobago, which was considered in October 2000. The Committee does not encourage the practice of States parties' merging overdue reports. However, with the adoption of the new guidelines, the date for the submission of the next periodic report is stated in the concluding observations; it remains premature to evaluate compliance with this requirement.
66. The Committee notes with concern that the failure of States to submit reports hinders the Committee in the performance of its monitoring functions under article 40 of the Covenant. The Committee lists below the States parties that have a report more than five years overdue, as well as those that have not submitted reports requested by a special decision of the Committee. The Committee reiterates that those States are in serious default of their obligations under article 40 of the Covenant.
|
State party |
Type of report |
Date due |
Years overdue |
|
Gambia |
Second |
21 June 1985 |
16 |
|
Suriname |
Second |
2 August 1985 |
15 |
|
Kenya |
Second |
11 April 1986 |
15 |
|
Mali |
Second |
11 April 1986 |
15 |
|
Equatorial Guinea |
Initial |
24 December 1988 |
12 |
|
Central African Republic |
Second |
9 April 1989 |
12 |
|
Barbados |
Third |
11 April 1991 |
10 |
|
Somalia |
Initial |
23 April 1991 |
10 |
|
Nicaragua |
Third |
11 June 1991 |
10 |
|
Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Third |
31 July 1991 |
9 |
|
Portugal |
Third |
1 August 1991 |
9 |
|
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines |
Second |
31 October 1991 |
9 |
|
San Marino |
Second |
17 January 1992 |
9 |
|
Panama |
Third |
31 March 1992 |
9 |
|
Rwanda |
Third |
10 April 1992 |
9 |
|
Madagascar |
Third |
31 July 1992 |
8 |
|
Grenada |
Initial |
5 December 1992 |
8 |
|
Albania |
Initial |
3 January 1993 |
8 |
|
Philippines |
Second |
22 January 1993 |
8 |
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Initial |
5 March 1993 |
8 |
|
Benin |
Initial |
11 June 1993 |
8 |
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
Initial |
25 June 1993 |
8 |
|
Seychelles |
Initial |
4 August 1993 |
7 |
|
Mauritius |
Fourth |
4 November 1993 |
7 |
|
Angola |
Initial/Special |
31 January 1994 |
7 |
|
Niger |
Second |
31 March 1994 |
7 |
|
Afghanistan |
Third |
23 April 1994 |
7 |
|
Ethiopia |
Initial |
10 September 1994 |
6 |
|
Dominica |
Initial |
16 September 1994 |
6 |
|
Guinea |
Third |
30 September 1994 |
6 |
|
Mozambique |
Initial |
20 October 1994 |
6 |
|
Cape Verde |
Initial |
5 November 1994 |
6 |
|
Luxembourg |
Third |
17 November 1994 |
6 |
|
Bulgaria |
Third |
31 December 1994 |
6 |
|
Egypt |
Third |
31 December 1994 |
6 |
|
Islamic Republic of Iran |
Third |
31 December 1994 |
6 |
|
Malawi |
Initial |
21 March 1995 |
6 |
|
El Salvador |
Third |
31 December 1995 |
5 |
|
Namibia |
Initial |
27 February 1996 |
5 |
67. The Committee once again draws particular attention to the fact that 28 initial reports have not yet been presented (including the 15 overdue initial reports listed above). This situation frustrates a major objective of ratifying the Covenant, which is to submit regular reports on compliance with it to the Committee. There has been no opportunity even to commence a discussion of the human rights situation in the States concerned.
68. In the period under review, two States parties (Uzbekistan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) whose reports were listed for consideration at the seventieth and seventy-first sessions respectively, notified the Committee shortly before the scheduled consideration of their respective report that they could not send a delegation on the scheduled date and asked for a postponement. The Committee expresses its concern at this failure of States to cooperate in the reporting process and especially their withdrawal at a late stage; such conduct aggravates the problem of the backlog in the examination of reports, since it is impossible for the Committee to schedule at short notice the examination of any other report. In the case of Uzbekistan, the Committee was able to reschedule consideration of the initial report from the seventieth to the seventy-first session, but could not examine another State party's report during the seventieth session. Similarly, after the withdrawal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia prior to the seventy-first session, the Committee could not, at short notice, schedule another State party's report for consideration during the seventy-first session.
69. The amended rules of procedure now enable the Committee to consider compliance by States parties which have failed to submit reports under article 40 or which have requested a postponement of their scheduled appearance before the Committee (see chap. II, para. 54).
70. At its 1860th meeting on 24 July 2000, the Committee decided that Kazakhstan should be requested to present its initial report by 31 July 2001, notwithstanding the fact that no instrument of succession or accession has been received from Kazakhstan following its independence. By the time of the adoption of the present report, the initial report of Kazakhstan had not been received.
71. The following sections, arranged on a country-by-country basis in the sequence followed by the Committee in its consideration of the reports, contain the concluding observations adopted by the Committee with respect to the States parties' reports considered at its seventieth, seventy‑first and seventy-second sessions. The Committee urges States parties to adopt corrective measures consistent with their obligations under the Covenant and to implement these recommendations.
(1) The Committee considered the joint third and fourth periodic reports of Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/TTO/99/3) at its 1870th and 1871st meetings, on 17 October 2000, and subsequently adopted its concluding observations and recommendations at its 1891st meeting, on 31 October.
(2) The Committee regrets the delay in submission of these reports, but welcomes the information set out in the report and the accompanying material. Supplementary written answers were received in time for them to be considered by the Committee.
(3) The Committee welcomes the setting up, in the Ministry of the Attorney‑General and Legal Affairs, of a Human Rights Unit, its activities in clearing the backlog in reporting under the Covenant and the human rights treaties, and its other initiatives to improve the protection for human rights.
(4) The Committee commends improvements to the remedies provided in cases of domestic violence, together with specialized personnel now available to assist victims, including the Domestic Violence Unit set up by the Ministry of Culture and Gender Affairs.
(5) The Committee takes note with satisfaction of the institution of the independent Police Complaints Authority and looks forward to rapid proclamation of the Act extending its powers.
(6) The extension of legal aid, both in terms of geographical distribution and of the tribunals before which it is available, as well as raising of fees so as to attract higher quality advocates, increases compliance with article 14.3 (d).
(7) The Committee places on record its profound regret at the denunciation of the Optional Protocol. In the light of the continued existence of the death penalty, and despite assurances by the delegation that proposals to extend the death penalty have been rejected, it recommends that:
(a) In relation to all persons accused of capital offences the State party should ensure that every requirement of article 6 is strictly complied with;
(b) In the event of reclassification of murder being brought into effect for persons thereafter tried and convicted, those already convicted of murder should be entitled to similar reclassification, in accordance with article 15.1; and
(c) The assistance of counsel should be ensured, through legal aid as necessary, immediately on arrest and throughout all subsequent proceedings to persons accused of serious crimes, in particular in cases carrying the death penalty.
(8) Upon ratifying the Covenant, the State party accepted obligations under articles 2.1 and 2.2 to ensure that all individuals subject to its jurisdiction should enjoy Covenant rights; and, insofar as not already in place, to take the necessary steps to adopt measures to give effect to those rights.
The State party may not rely on limitations in its Constitution as grounds for non‑compliance with the Covenant but should put in place the necessary laws to achieve such compliance.
(9) The Committee is concerned that a thorough review of domestic law, to ensure compliance with the Covenant norms, has not yet been completed.
The State party should, for example, align the limitations imposed by article 4 of the Covenant with domestic measures to be taken in cases of public emergency, so as to:
(a) Comply with the categorization of an emergency that it must threaten the "life of the nation";
(b) Respect the prohibition on derogation contained in article 4.2; the State party should establish that measures permitted under emergency powers are so compatible;
(c) Ensure that any derogations from the State party's obligations under the Covenant do not exceed those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
(10) The Committee is concerned at the lack of remedies under domestic legislation, including the Constitution, for victims of discrimination within the full amb