FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON STATE REPORTS AND TO VIEWS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (agenda item 7)

10. Turning to Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (communication No. 1159/2003), he said that the State party’s response would be transmitted to the author for comments, with a deadline of two months.

11. Mr. AMOR said that the State party’s exemplary and unprecedented response to the Committee’s Views was commendable and should be formally acknowledged.

12. The CHAIRPERSON cautioned the Committee against such action; by offering generous compensation, the State party might attempt to divert attention from other shortcomings, such as the failure to reveal the circumstances of Mr. Sankara’s death.

13. Sir Nigel RODLEY, endorsing the Chairperson’s comment, said that, before commending the State party formally for its action, the Committee should establish whether all its recommendations had indeed been implemented.

227. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

228. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 429 Views out of the 547 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

229. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

230. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

231. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

232. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2006, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

233. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/60/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Burkina Faso (1)	1159/2003, Sankara A/61/40	X A/61/40				X
...

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/60/40).

State party	BURKINO FASO
Case	1159/2003
Views adopted on	28 March 2006
Issues and violations found	Inhuman treatment and equality before the Courts - Articles 7 and 14, paragraph 1.
Remedy recommended	The State party is required to provide Ms. Sankara and her sons an effective and enforceable remedy in the form, inter alia, of official recognition of the place where Thomas Sankara is buried, and compensation for the anguish suffered by the family. The State party is also required to prevent such violations from occurring in the future.
Due date for State party response	4 July 2006
Date of State party’s response	30 June 2006
State party response	The State party states that it is ready to officially acknowledge Mr. Sankara’s grave at Dagnoin, 29 Ouagadougou, to his family and reiterates its submission prior to the decision that he has been declared a national hero and that a monument is being erected in his honour. It submits that on 7 March 2006, the Tribunal of Baskuy in the commune of Ouagadougou ordered a death certificate of Mr. Sankara, deceased on 15 October 1987 (it does not mention the cause of death). Mr. Sankara’s military pension has been liquidated for the benefit of his family. Despite offers by the State to the Sankara family to compensation from a fund set up on 30 March 2001 by the government for victims of violence in political life, Mr. Sankara’s widow and children have never wished to receive compensation in this regard. On 29 June 2006, and pursuant to the Committees’ Views to provide compensation, the government has assessed and liquidated the amount of compensation due to Ms. Sankara and her children as 43 4450 000 CFA (around US$ 843,326.951). The family should contact the fund to ascertain the method of payment.
	The State party submits that the Views are accessible on various governmental websites, as well as distributed to the media. Finally, the State party submits that the events which are the subject matter of these Views occurred 15 years ago at a time of chronic political instability. That since that time the State party has made much progress with respect to the protection of human rights, highlighted, inter alia, in its Constitution, by the establishment of a Minister charged with the protection of human rights and a large number of NGOs.

Follow-up to concluding observations on State reports and to Views under the Optional Protocol

Progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views (CCPR/C/89/R.5)

1. Mr. Shearer (Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views) introduced his report, which compiled information received during the eighty-eighth and eighty-ninth sessions of the Committee...

3. Turning to the case of Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (communication No. 1159/2003), he recalled that the State party, in its response, had agreed to implement the Committee's Views. The authors, however, in their comments, maintained their demand for a public inquiry into Mr. Sankara's death. The Committee was still awaiting the State party's response to the authors' comments.

4. Ms. Chanet said that the State party in the latter case seemed prepared to implement the Committee's Views. Although she understood the family's desire for an independent inquiry, that had not been recommended by the Committee. Under "Further action", the Committee indicated that the author's comments had been sent to the State party for comment on 26 February 2007. Therefore, it should also be indicated that the Committee's dialogue with the State party was ongoing.

5. Ms. Majodina agreed that the Committee should indicate that it considered its dialogue with the State party to be ongoing. She also wondered if the Special Rapporteur could clarify the reference in the author's comments to the fact that, according to the Procurator, a judicial inquiry could not be undertaken by the Minister of Defence because such an action was "time-barred".

6. Mr. Shearer said the expression "time-barred" no doubt referred to some statute of limitations, or a moratorium with regard to events during the period of political upheaval in question. More information in that regard could be requested of the State party. Given that the Committee was still waiting for a reply from the State party, he considered the case to be ongoing.

7. Mr. Glélé Ahanhanzo, supported by Mr. Amor, said the case should be considered ongoing in order to ensure that the Committee's Views were in fact implemented.

8. Mr. Schmidt (Team Leader, Petitions Unit) said that the State party had been very cooperative. The State party and the authors seemed unable to reach agreement on what constituted an effective remedy. He recalled that during the Committee's discussion of the case a majority of members had felt that it would not be appropriate to recommend an independent inquiry and the Committee had therefore confined itself in its Views to calling for the payment of compensation and public recognition of the victim's burial site. He suggested that the case should be kept open pending receipt of the State party's comments.

9. The Chairperson said he took it that the Committee agreed to that suggestion.

213. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

214. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 452 Views out of the 570 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

215. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

216. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

217. In many cases, the Committee secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

218. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2007, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

219. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/61/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Burkino Faso (1)	1159/2003, Sankara A/61/40	X A/61/40 A/62/40				X A/62/40
...

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/61/40).