ÿWPC ››uĬLÏcÎkM`Ò9äœÔ´K3iÕä+ª–h¦n©æàm»eL'W²!Œï>“C'ÉD!WÌrL`9Usoô›Û1ãqÆ_ã4Ìm ±«KÄOû—.ív)ˉﲵdi¦Ž¶uFÌo†Ž8{u<|çò˜@·/dä`E~±–ÝÁWR' P ÷lF)ržÂåX¾²ÇÊFjÚ iºûbNØâ-PB£y…õ0Tv6{ÁqRü›áË~6èáEP¬DÀmÈ_zk$ÃBR‹Ü, ³^Wö&Œ \ ©©ìwt…Y1*' ü&W¬Þu0Ôi1Ùof3Ñ‚å´ZMuÖ¿ø[^ËMÂÕeÈ»ä•]ƒôF ͼŢÒÞ´ ~"ßZ•¬Ø±×¹ÏR˜6ö‘=hŽ[Z²Z7%El5Ù§¢ú˜¥Z¤]W¬ßŽ³ÌìÕ+ŒaEÐØi©$š¢hMUÅ2ãý‡Œõês­JKþN‰5IŸdTÛ<.ÏO5rqdðzµÝ›ß~‚©ËxKºâlEéóôÃ×µFÃXçÿMª< Šç¼>•-š* ~cä’¢âKÉß=v¥ùKWs/ÕK^Ç»ÐVþ+Ý„ÆdCðrà € ZMì 0nð 0^U>t 0² 0:È 05 U67 Úm m 0nG^ µ 0oÁ D+0Æ[ 0n! 0D 0nÓ AQAw’’–#ɦU No %½ 0SÃN4, m. 0>cE 1u¨ 0w 0Š” 0  0´¾ 0Çr 0Û9 0ï 1‰(Œ 72´ 0Dæ¼******************************************** Bæ<ÿÿ:Default ParaÔ€XXXÔÔ€XXXÔ0Iœÿÿ.headerÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔÑ  ÑÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÓ  Óô\  `&Times New Roman0Iœÿÿ.footerÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔ€XXXÔÑ  ÑÓ°°ÀÐ (#ÓÓ  Ó:ÿÿ8page number8z‚ÿÿ6Plain TextÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔK€<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ€XXXÔÔS€ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÑ  ÑÓ  Ó<þ6X9`(Courier New'  >Centre for Refugee Studies>0Centre for Refugee Studies .   (F2O1$§§Ý ƒa\!ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý …¸6‡ (G3Lx$©©Ý ƒa\!ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxdƒ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(F2O1$££Ý ƒa\!ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(F2O1$¢¢Ý ƒa\!ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝCþÿ<< cÿÿ3|P˜HP PSC 2350 seriesTŽ––––TŽ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(+a\$¡¡Ô€X-HXXXÔÓ  ÓcC‚6+&zCorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xir$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÜ$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(ŸF$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2#Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³Àô$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(ǵ{$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à!"#$%&'xFìGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List i)(F$ïïà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àÔ2#ÔÙ ÙÚ  ÚÚ  ÚÙ Ù)Ô3  Ôà0Èp(#p(#àÙ Ù ²Ý ƒ O1'ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡¼;»XX}2ÔNATIONALITYÔ#†X}2X»¼;e#Ô dÝ ƒa\!ÝÔ€X}2XXXÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÖ€-ÿÿÖÑ8€}2XXdìdÈ8Ñò òòòIII.€JURISPRUDENCEóóó óÐ Œ ÐÌòòò òÔ_ÔCERDÔ_Ôó óóóÐ dØ ÐÌÓ€ (!"#$%&'(Fìx3 ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£žÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝòòHabassi€v.€Denmarkóó€(10/1997),€CERD,€A/54/18€(17€March€1999)€86Ð < ° Ð(CERD/C/54/D/10/1997)€at€paras.€2.1,€2.2,€9.2„9.4€and€10.݃3£žËÝŒÐ( œ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð t(#(# Ðà0  à2.1€€On€17€May€1996€the€author€visited€the€shop€"Scandinavian€Car€Styling"€to€purchase€anÐ ì ` Ðalarm€set€for€his€car.€€When€he€inquired€about€procedures€for€obtaining€a€loan€he€wasÐ ØL  Ðinformed€that€"Scandinavian€Car€Styling"€cooperated€with€Sparbank€Vest,€a€local€bank,€andÐ Ä8  Ðwas€given€a€loan€application€form€which€he€completed€and€returned€immediately€to€the€shop.€Ð °$  ÐThe€application€form€included,€òòinter€aliaóó,€a€standard€provision€according€to€which€the€personÐ œ  Ðapplying€for€the€loan€declared€himself€or€herself€to€be€a€Danish€citizen.€€The€author,€who€hadÐ ˆü  Ða€permanent€residence€permit€in€Denmark€and€was€married€to€a€Danish€citizen,€signed€theÐ tè  Ðform€in€spite€of€this€provision.Ð`Ô (#(# ÐÌà0  à2.2€€Subsequently,€Sparbank€Vest€informed€the€author€that€it€would€approve€the€loan€onlyÐ 8¬ Ðif€he€could€produce€a€Danish€passport€or€if€his€wife€was€indicated€as€applicant.€€The€authorÐ $˜ Ðwas€also€informed€that€it€was€the€general€policy€of€the€bank€not€to€approve€loans€toÐ „ Ðnon-Danish€citizens.Ðüp(#(# Ðà0  à...Ðè\(#(# Ðà0  à9.2€€Financial€means€are€often€needed€to€facilitate€integration€in€society.€€To€have€access€toÐ ÔH Ðthe€credit€market€and€be€allowed€to€apply€for€a€financial€loan€on€the€same€conditions€as€thoseÐ À4 Ðwhich€are€valid€for€the€majority€in€the€society€is,€therefore,€an€important€issue.Ь (#(# ÐÌà0  à9.3€€In€the€present€case€the€author€was€refused€a€loan€by€a€Danish€bank€on€the€sole€groundÐ „ø Ðof€his€non-Danish€nationality€and€was€told€that€the€nationality€requirement€was€motivatedÐ pä Ðby€the€need€to€ensure€that€the€loan€was€repaid.€€In€the€opinion€of€the€Committee,€however,Ð \ Ð Ðnationality€is€not€the€most€appropriate€requisite€when€investigating€a€person's€will€or€capacityÐ H!¼ Ðto€reimburse€a€loan.€€The€applicant's€permanent€residence€or€the€place€where€his€employment,Ð 4"¨ Ðproperty€or€family€ties€are€to€be€found€may€be€more€relevant€in€this€context.€€A€citizen€mayÐ  #” Ðmove€abroad€or€have€all€his€property€in€another€country€and€thus€evade€all€attempts€toÐ  $€  Ðenforce€a€claim€of€repayment.€€Accordingly,€the€Committee€finds€that,€on€the€basis€of€articleÐ ø$l! Ð2,€paragraph€(d),€of€the€Convention,€it€is€appropriate€to€initiate€a€proper€investigation€into€theÐ ä%X" Ðreal€reasons€behind€the€bank's€loan€policyòò€vis€€visóó€foreign€residents,€in€order€to€ascertainÐ Ð&D # Ðwhether€or€not€criteria€involving€racial€discrimination,€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€theÐ ¼'0!$ ÐConvention,€are€being€applied.Ш("%(#(# ÐÌà0  à9.4€€The€Committee€notes€that€the€author,€considering€the€incident€an€offence€under€theÐ €*ô#' ÐDanish€Act€against€Discrimination,€reported€it€to€the€police.€€First€the€police€andÐ l+à$( Ðsubsequently€the€State€Prosecutor€in€Ô_ÔViborgÔ_Ô€accepted€the€explanations€provided€by€aÐ Œ Ðrepresentative€of€the€bank€and€decided€not€to€investigate€the€case€further.€€In€the€Committee'sÐ xì Ðopinion,€however,€the€steps€taken€by€the€police€and€the€State€Prosecutor€were€insufficient€toÐ dØ Ðdetermine€whether€or€not€an€act€of€racial€discrimination€had€taken€place.ÐP Ä(#(# ÐÌà0  à10.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€is€of€the€view€that€the€author€was€denied€effectiveÐ ( œ Ðremedy€within€the€meaning€of€article€6€of€the€Convention€in€connection€with€article€2€(d).Ð ˆ(#(# ÐÌÌòòò òÔ_ÔICCPRÔ_Ôó óóóÐ ØL  ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£©ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔGueyeÔ_Ô€v.€Franceóó€(196/1985),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/44/40€(3€April€1989)€189€at€paras.€9.4€and€€9.5.€Ýƒ3£©Ù݌а$ (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Јü (#(# Ðà0  à9.4€€The€Committee€has€noted€the€authorsðð€claim€that€they€have€been€discriminated€againstÐ tè  Ðon€racial€grounds,€that€is,€one€of€the€grounds€specifically€enumerated€in€article€26.€€It€findsÐ `Ô  Ðthat€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€the€allegation€that€the€state€party€has€engaged€in€raciallyÐ LÀ Ðdiscriminating€practices€òòvis„„visóó€the€authors.€€It€remains,€however,€to€be€determined€whetherÐ 8¬ Ðthe€situation€encountered€by€the€€encountered€by€the€authors€falls€within€the€purview€ofÐ $˜ Ðarticle€26.€€The€Committee€recalls€that€the€authors€are€not€generally€within€FrenchÐ „ Ðjurisdiction,€except€that€they€rely€on€French€legislation€in€relation€to€the€amount€of€theirÐ üp Ðpension€rights.€€It€notes€that€nationality€does€not€figure€among€the€prohibited€grounds€ofÐ è\ Ðdiscrimination€listed€in€article€26,€and€that€the€Covenant€does€not€protect€the€right€to€aÐ ÔH Ðpension,€as€such.€€Under€article€26,€discrimination€in€the€equal€protection€of€the€law€isÐ À4 Ðprohibited€on€any€grounds€such€as€race,€Ô_ÔcolourÔ_Ô,€sex,€language,€religion,€political€or€otherÐ ¬  Ðopinion,€national€or€social€origin,€property,€birth€or€other€status.€€There€has€been€aÐ ˜  Ðdifferentiation€by€reference€to€nationality€acquired€upon€independence.€€In€the€CommitteeððsÐ „ø Ðopinion,€this€falls€within€the€reference€to€ð ðother€statusðð€in€the€second€sentence€of€article€26.€Ð pä ÐThe€Committee€takes€into€account,€as€it€did€in€Communication€No.€182/1984,€that€ð ðthe€rightÐ \ Ð Ðto€equality€before€the€law€and€to€equal€protection€of€the€law€without€any€discrimination€doesÐ H!¼ Ðnot€make€all€differences€of€treatment€discriminatory.€€A€differentiation€based€on€reasonableÐ 4"¨ Ðand€objective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€ofÐ  #” Ðarticle€26".€Ð $€ (#(# ÐÌà0  à9.5€€In€determining€whether€the€treatment€of€the€authors€is€based€on€reasonable€and€objectiveÐ ä%X" Ðcriteria,€the€Committee€notes€that€it€was€not€the€question€of€nationality€which€determined€theÐ Ð&D # Ðgranting€of€pensions€to€the€authors€but€the€services€rendered€by€them€in€the€past...AÐ ¼'0!$ Ðsubsequent€change€in€nationality€cannot€by€itself€be€considered€as€a€sufficient€justificationÐ ¨("% Ðfor€different€treatment,€since€the€basis€for€the€grant€of€the€pension€was€the€same€serviceÐ ”)#& Ðwhich€both€they€and€the€soldiers€who€remained€French€had€provided.€€Nor€can€difference€inÐ €*ô#' Ðthe€economic,€financial€and€social€conditions€as€between€France€and€Senegal€be€invoked€asÐ l+à$( Ða€legitimate€justification.€€If€one€compared€the€case€of€retired€soldiers€of€SenegaleseÐ Œ Ðnationality€in€Senegal€with€that€of€retired€soldiers€of€French€nationality€in€Senegal,€it€wouldÐ xì Ðappear€that€they€enjoy€the€same€economic€and€social€conditions.€€Yet,€their€treatment€for€theÐ dØ Ðpurpose€of€pension€entitlements€would€differ.€€Finally,€the€fact€that€the€State€party€claims€thatÐ P Ä Ðit€can€no€longer€carry€out€checks€of€identity€and€family€situation,€so€as€to€prevent€abuses€inÐ < ° Ðthe€administration€of€pension€schemes€cannot€justify€a€difference€in€treatment.€€In€theÐ ( œ ÐCommitteeððs€opinion,€mere€administrative€convenience€or€the€possibility€of€some€abuse€ofÐ  ˆ Ðpension€rights€cannot€be€invoked€to€justify€unequal€treatment.€€The€Committee€concludesÐ  t Ðthat€the€difference€in€treatment€of€the€authors€is€not€based€on€reasonable€and€objectiveÐ ì ` Ðcriteria€and€constitutes€discrimination€prohibited€by€the€Covenant.ÐØL (#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£á#ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔKulominÔ_Ô€v.€Hungaryóó€(521/1992),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/51/40€vol.€II€(22€March€1996)€73Ð œ  Ð(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/56/D/521/1992)€at€para.€11.6.݃3£á#$݌Јü (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð`Ô (#(# Ðà0  à11.6€€The€author€further€has€claimed€that€the€judge€at€the€trial€of€first€instance€was€biasedÐ LÀ Ðagainst€him€and,€more€specifically,€that€she€discriminated€against€him€because€of€hisÐ 8¬ Ðnationality.€€The€Committee€notes€that€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€First€Instance€shows€noÐ $˜ Ðtrace€of€bias€on€the€part€of€the€judge€and,€moreover,€that€the€author€or€his€representativeÐ „ Ðmade€no€objection€during€the€trial€to€the€judge's€attitude.€€In€the€circumstances,€theÐ üp ÐCommittee€finds€that€there€is€no€substantiation€for€the€author's€claim€that€he€wasÐ è\ Ðdiscriminated€against€on€the€basis€of€his€nationality.ÐÔH(#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£Ÿ(ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAdam€v.€The€Czech€Republicóó€(586/1994),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/51/40€vol.€II€(23€July€1996)€165€at€paras.Ð ˜  Ð2.1,€12.2,€12.4„12.7,€13.1€and€Individual€Opinion€by€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_Ô€(concurring),€173.݃3£Ÿ(Ï(݌Єø(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð\ Ð(#(# Ðà0  à2.1€€The€author's€father,€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam,€was€a€Czech€citizen,€whose€property€and€businessÐ H!¼ Ðwere€confiscated€by€the€Czechoslovak€Government€in€1949.€Mr.€Adam€fled€the€country€andÐ 4"¨ Ðeventually€moved€to€Australia,€where€his€three€sons,€including€the€author€of€theÐ  #” Ðcommunication,€were€born.€In€1985,€Ô_ÔVlatislavÔ_Ô€Adam€died€and,€in€his€last€will€and€testament,Ð  $€  Ðleft€his€Czech€property€to€his€sons.€Since€then,€the€sons€have€been€trying€in€vain€to€have€theirÐ ø$l! Ðproperty€returned€to€them.€Ðä%X"(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐÐ&D #(#(# Ðà0  à12.2€€...€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€right€to€property,€as€such,€is€not€protected€under€the€Covenant.€However,€aÐ ¼'0!$ Ðconfiscation€of€private€property€or€the€failure€of€a€State€party€to€pay€compensation€for€suchÐ ¨("% Ðconfiscation€could€still€entail€a€breach€of€the€Covenant€if€the€relevant€act€or€omission€wasÐ ”)#& Ðbased€on€discriminatory€grounds,€in€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð€*ô#'(#(# Ðà0  à...Ðl+à$((#(# Ðà0  à12.4€€In€the€instant€case,€the€author€has€been€affected€by€the€exclusionary€effect€of€theÐ Œ Ðrequirement€in€Act€87/1991€that€claimants€be€Czech€citizens.€The€question€before€theÐ xì ÐCommittee,€therefore,€is€whether€the€precondition€to€restitution€or€compensation€isÐ dØ Ðcompatible€with€the€non„discrimination€requirement€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€In€thisÐ P Ä Ðcontext,€the€Committee€reiterates€its€jurisprudence€that€not€all€differentiation€in€treatment€canÐ < ° Ðbe€deemed€to€be€discriminatory€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€òò2óó/€€A€differentiation€whichÐ ( œ Ðis€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€is€based€on€reasonable€grounds€doesÐ  ˆ Ðnot€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26.€Ð t(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.5€€In€examining€whether€the€conditions€for€restitution€or€compensation€are€compatibleÐ ØL  Ðwith€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€must€consider€all€relevant€factors,€including€the€originalÐ Ä8  Ðentitlement€of€the€author's€father€to€the€property€in€question€and€the€nature€of€theÐ °$  Ðconfiscation.€The€State€party€itself€has€acknowledged€that€the€confiscations€under€theÐ œ  ÐCommunist€governments€were€injurious€and€that€is€why€specific€legislation€was€enacted€toÐ ˆü  Ðprovide€for€a€form€of€restitution.€The€Committee€observes€that€such€legislation€must€notÐ tè  Ðdiscriminate€among€the€victims€of€the€prior€confiscations,€since€all€victims€are€entitled€toÐ `Ô  Ðredress€without€arbitrary€distinctions.€Bearing€in€mind€that€the€author's€original€entitlementÐ LÀ Ðto€his€property€by€virtue€of€inheritance€was€not€predicated€on€citizenship,€the€CommitteeÐ 8¬ Ðfinds€that€the€condition€of€citizenship€in€Act€87/1991€is€unreasonable.€Ð$˜(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.6€€In€this€context,€the€Committee€recalls€its€rationale€in€its€views€on€communication€No.Ð üp Ð516/1992€(òòÔ_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€the€Czech€Republicóó),€adopted€on€19€July€1995,€òò3óó/€in€which€itÐ è\ Ðconsidered€that€the€authors€in€that€case€and€many€others€in€analogous€situations€had€leftÐ ÔH ÐCzechoslovakia€because€of€their€political€opinions€and€had€sought€refuge€from€politicalÐ À4 Ðpersecution€in€other€countries,€where€they€eventually€established€permanent€residence€andÐ ¬  Ðobtained€a€new€citizenship.€Taking€into€account€that€the€State€party€itself€is€responsible€forÐ ˜  Ðthe€departure€of€the€author's€parents€in€1949,€it€would€be€incompatible€with€the€Covenant€toÐ „ø Ðrequire€the€author€and€his€brothers€to€obtain€Czech€citizenship€as€a€prerequisite€for€theÐ pä Ðrestitution€of€their€property€or,€alternatively,€for€the€payment€of€appropriate€compensation.€Ð\ Ð(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.7€€The€State€party€contends€that€there€is€no€violation€of€the€Covenant€because€the€CzechÐ 4"¨ Ðand€Slovak€legislators€had€no€discriminatory€intent€at€the€time€of€the€adoption€of€ActÐ  #” Ð87/1991.€The€Committee€is€of€the€view,€however,€that€the€intent€of€the€legislature€is€notÐ  $€  ÐÔ_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€in€determining€a€breach€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€but€rather€the€consequencesÐ ø$l! Ðof€the€enacted€legislation.€Whatever€the€motivation€or€intent€of€the€legislature,€a€law€may€stillÐ ä%X" Ðcontravene€article€26€of€the€Covenant€if€its€effects€are€discriminatory.€ÐÐ&D #(#(# Ðà0  à...м'0!$(#(# Ðà0  à13.1€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€...€is€of€the€view€that€the€denial€of€restitution€orÐ ¨("% Ðcompensation€to€the€author€and€his€brothers€constitutes€a€violation€of€article€26€of€theÐ ”)#& ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð€*ô#'(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ðl+à$((#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐŒ(#(# Ðà0  à...Ðxì(#(# Ðà0  àòò2óó/€€€See€òòOfficial€Records€of€the€General€Assembly,€Forty„second€Session,€Supplement€No.Ð dØ Ð40óó€(A/42/40),€annex€Ô_ÔVIII.DÔ_Ô,€communication€No.€182/1994,€(òòÔ_ÔZwaanÔ_Ô„de€Vries€v.€theÐ P Ä ÐNetherlandsóó),€views€adopted€on€9€April€1987,€para.€13.Ð< °(#(# ÐÌà0  àòò3óó/€€òòIbidóó.,€òòFiftieth€Session,€Supplement€No.€40óó€(A/50/40),€vol.€II,€annex€Ô_ÔX.K.Ô_ÔòòÐ ˆ(#(# Ðà0  àóó_________________Ð t(#(# ÐÌà0  àòòIndividual€Opinion€by€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_ÔóóÐØL (#(# ÐÌà0  àConsidering€the€Human€Rights€Committee's€views€on€communication€No.€516/1992,€I€doÐ °$  Ðnot€oppose€the€adoption€by€the€Committee€of€the€views€in€the€instant€case.€However,€I€wouldÐ œ  Ðlike€to€point€to€the€following:€Ðˆü (#(# ÐÌà0  àFirst,€under€current€rules€of€general€international€law,€States€are€free€to€choose€theirÐ `Ô  Ðeconomic€system.€As€a€matter€of€fact,€when€the€United€Nations€adopted€the€InternationalÐ LÀ ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€in€1966,€the€then€Socialist€States€were€managingÐ 8¬ Ðplanned€economies€under€which€private€ownership€was€largely€restricted€or€prohibited€inÐ $˜ Ðprinciple.€Even€nowadays€not€a€few€States€parties€to€the€Covenant,€including€those€adoptingÐ „ Ðmarked„oriented€economies,€restrict€or€prohibit€foreigners€from€private€ownership€ofÐ üp Ðimmovable€properties€in€their€territories.€Ðè\(#(# ÐÌà0  àSecond,€consequently,€it€is€not€impossible€for€a€State€party€to€limit€the€ownership€ofÐ À4 Ðimmovable€properties€in€its€territory€to€its€nationals€or€citizens,€thereby€precluding€theirÐ ¬  Ðwives€or€children€of€different€nationality€or€citizenship€from€inheriting€or€succeeding€to€thoseÐ ˜  Ðproperties.€Such€inheritance€or€succession€is€regulated€by€rules€of€private€international€lawÐ „ø Ðof€the€States€concerned,€and€I€am€not€aware€of€any€universally€recognized€"absolute€right€ofÐ pä Ðinheritance€or€of€succession€to€private€property".€Ð\ Ð(#(# ÐÌà0  àThird,€while€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€enshrines€the€principleÐ 4"¨ Ðof€non„discrimination€and€equality€before€the€law,€it€does€not€prohibit€"legitimateÐ  #” Ðdistinctions"€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€criteria.€Nor€does€the€Covenant€define€orÐ  $€  Ðprotect€economic€rights€as€such.€This€means€that€the€Human€Rights€Committee€shouldÐ ø$l! Ðexercise€utmost€caution€in€dealing€with€questions€of€discrimination€in€the€economic€field.Ð ä%X" ÐFor€example,€restrictions€or€prohibitions€of€certain€economic€rights,€including€the€right€ofÐ Ð&D # Ðinheritance€or€succession,€which€are€based€on€nationality€or€citizenship,€may€well€be€justifiedÐ ¼'0!$ Ðas€legitimate€distinctions.Ш("%(#(# ÐÌò òòòSee€also:ó óóóÐ €*ô#' ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£tMÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝòòÔ_ÔSimunekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€The€Czech€Republicóó€(516/1992),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/50/40€vol.€II€(19€July€1995)€89Ð h+Ü$( Ðat€paras.€2.1,€11.3,€11.5„11.7€and€12.1.݃3£tM¡M݌Ќ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝòòÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ OÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBlazekÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€The€Czech€Republicóó€(857/1999),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/56/40€vol.€II€(12€July€2001)€168Ð xì Ðat€paras.€2.1,€5.4,€5.6,€5.8,€6€and€Individual€Opinion€by€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAndoÔ_Ô€(concurring),€174.݃3£ O6OÝŒÐdØ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ (!"#$%&'(Fìxx(!"#$%&'ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£‰QÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝDes€Fours€v.€Czech€Republicóó€(747/1997),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/57/40€vol.€II€(30€October€2001)€88Ð P Ä Ð(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/73/D/747/1997)€at€paras.€2.1„2.4,€2.6,€2.7,€8.3,€8.4,€9.1€and€9.2.݃3£‰Q¹QÝŒÐ< °(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£9SÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝStewart€v.€Canada€óó(538/1993),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/52/40€vol.€II€(1€November€1996)€47Ð  t Ð(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/58/D/538/1993)€at€paras.€7.5,€12.2„12.5,€12.7„12.9€and€Individual€Opinion€byÐ ì ` ÐÔ_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein€(concurring),€60.€€Ýƒ3£9SiSÝŒÐØL (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...а$ (#(# Ðà0  à7.5€€Concerning€the€claim€under€article€12,€the€Committee€noted€the€State€party's€contentionÐ œ  Ðthat€no€substantiation€in€support€of€this€claim€had€been€adduced,€as€well€as€counsel'sÐ ˆü  Ðcontention€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€was€applicable€to€Mr.€Stewart's€case.€€The€CommitteeÐ tè  Ðnoted€that€the€determination€of€whether€article€12,€paragraph€4,€was€applicable€to€the€author'sÐ `Ô  Ðsituation€required€a€careful€analysis€of€whether€Canada€could€be€regarded€as€the€author'sÐ LÀ Ðð ðcountryðð€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€and,€if€so,€whether€the€author's€deportation€to€theÐ 8¬ ÐUnited€Kingdom€would€bar€him€from€reentering€"his€own€country",€and,€in€the€affirmative,Ð $˜ Ðwhether€this€would€be€done€arbitrarily.€€The€Committee€considered€that€there€was€no€òòa€priorióóÐ „ Ðindication€that€the€author's€situation€could€not€be€subsumed€under€article€12,€paragraph€4,€andÐ üp Ðtherefore€concluded€that€this€issue€should€be€considered€on€its€merits.€Ðè\(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐÔH(#(# Ðà0  à12.2€€Article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€provides:€"No€one€shall€be€arbitrarily€deprivedÐ À4 Ðof€the€right€to€enter€his€own€country".€€This€article€does€not€refer€directly€to€expulsion€orÐ ¬  Ðdeportation€of€a€person.€€It€may,€of€course,€be€argued€that€the€duty€of€a€State€party€to€refrainÐ ˜  Ðfrom€deporting€persons€is€a€direct€function€of€this€provision€and€that€a€State€party€that€isÐ „ø Ðunder€an€obligation€to€allow€entry€of€a€person€is€also€prohibited€from€deporting€that€person.€Ð pä ÐGiven€its€conclusion€regarding€article€12,€paragraph€4,€that€will€be€explained€below,€theÐ \ Ð ÐCommittee€does€not€have€to€rule€on€that€argument€in€the€present€case.€€It€will€merely€assumeÐ H!¼ Ðthat€if€article€12,€paragraph€4,€were€to€apply€to€the€author,€the€State€party€would€be€precludedÐ 4"¨ Ðfrom€deporting€him.€€Ð #”(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.3€€It€must€now€be€asked€whether€Canada€qualifies€as€being€Mr.€Stewart's€ð ðcountryðð.€€InÐ ø$l! Ðinterpreting€article€12,€paragraph€4,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€scope€of€the€phrase€"hisÐ ä%X" Ðown€country"€is€broader€than€the€concept€"country€of€his€nationality",€which€it€embraces€andÐ Ð&D # Ðwhich€some€regional€human€rights€treaties€use€in€guaranteeing€the€right€to€enter€a€country.€Ð ¼'0!$ ÐMoreover,€in€seeking€to€understand€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€account€must€alsoÐ ¨("% Ðbe€had€of€the€language€of€article€13€of€the€Covenant.€€That€provision€speaks€of€"an€alienÐ ”)#& Ðlawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party"€in€limiting€the€rights€of€States€to€expel€an€individualÐ €*ô#' Ðcategorized€as€an€"alien".€€It€would€thus€appear€that€"his€own€country"€as€a€concept€appliesÐ l+à$( Ðto€individuals€who€are€nationals€and€to€certain€categories€of€individuals€who,€while€notÐ Œ Ðnationals€in€a€formal€sense,€are€also€not€"aliens"€within€the€meaning€of€article€13,€althoughÐ xì Ðthey€may€be€considered€as€aliens€for€other€purposes.€ÐdØ(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.4€€What€is€less€clear€is€who,€in€addition€to€nationals,€is€protected€by€the€provisions€ofÐ < ° Ðarticle€12,€paragraph€4.€€Since€the€concept€"his€own€country"€is€not€limited€to€nationality€inÐ ( œ Ða€formal€sense,€that€is,€nationality€acquired€on€birth€or€by€conferral,€it€embraces,€at€the€veryÐ  ˆ Ðleast,€an€individual€who,€because€of€his€special€ties€to€or€claims€in€relation€to€a€given€countryÐ  t Ðcannot€there€be€considered€to€be€a€mere€alien.€€This€would€be€the€case,€for€example,€ofÐ ì ` Ðnationals€of€a€country€who€have€there€been€stripped€of€their€nationality€in€violation€ofÐ ØL  Ðinternational€law€and€of€individuals€whose€country€of€nationality€has€been€incorporated€intoÐ Ä8  Ðor€transferred€to€another€national€entity€whose€nationality€is€being€denied€them.€€In€short,Ð °$  Ðwhile€these€individuals€may€not€be€nationals€in€the€formal€sense,€neither€are€they€aliensÐ œ  Ðwithin€the€meaning€of€article€13.€€The€language€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€permits€a€broaderÐ ˆü  Ðinterpretation,€moreover,€that€might€embrace€other€categories€of€long-term€residents,Ð tè  Ðparticularly€stateless€persons€arbitrarily€deprived€of€the€right€to€acquire€the€nationality€of€theÐ `Ô  Ðcountry€of€such€residence.€€ÐLÀ(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.5€€€The€question€in€the€present€case€is€whether€a€person€who€enters€a€given€State€underÐ $˜ Ðthat€State's€immigration€laws,€and€subject€to€the€conditions€of€those€laws,€can€regard€thatÐ „ ÐState€as€his€own€country€when€he€has€not€acquired€its€nationality€and€continues€to€retain€theÐ üp Ðnationality€of€his€country€of€origin.€€The€answer€could€possibly€be€positive€were€the€countryÐ è\ Ðof€immigration€to€place€unreasonable€impediments€on€the€acquiring€of€nationality€by€newÐ ÔH Ðimmigrants.€€But€when,€as€in€the€present€case,€the€country€of€immigration€facilitatesÐ À4 Ðacquiring€its€nationality,€and€the€immigrant€refrains€from€doing€so,€either€by€choice€or€byÐ ¬  Ðcommitting€acts€that€will€disqualify€him€from€acquiring€that€nationality,€the€country€ofÐ ˜  Ðimmigration€does€not€become€"his€own€country"€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraphÐ „ø Ð4,€of€the€Covenant.€€In€this€regard€it€is€to€be€noted€that€while€in€the€drafting€of€article€12,Ð pä Ðparagraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€the€term€"country€of€nationality"€was€rejected,€so€was€theÐ \ Ð Ðsuggestion€to€refer€to€the€country€of€one's€permanent€home.€ÐH!¼(#(# Ðà0  à...Ð4"¨(#(# Ðà0  à12.7€€This€case€would€not€raise€the€obvious€human€problems€Mr.€Stewart's€deportation€fromÐ  #” ÐCanada€presents€were€it€not€for€the€fact€that€he€was€not€deported€much€earlier.€€Were€theÐ  $€  ÐCommittee€to€rely€on€this€argument€to€prevent€Canada€from€now€deporting€him,€it€wouldÐ ø$l! Ðestablish€a€principle€that€might€adversely€affect€immigrants€all€over€the€world€whose€firstÐ ä%X" Ðbrush€with€the€law€would€trigger€their€deportation€lest€their€continued€residence€in€theÐ Ð&D # Ðcountry€convert€them€into€individuals€entitled€to€the€protection€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Ð¼'0!$(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.8€€Countries€like€Canada,€which€enable€immigrants€to€become€nationals€after€a€reasonableÐ ”)#& Ðperiod€of€residence,€have€a€right€to€expect€that€such€immigrants€will€in€due€course€acquireÐ €*ô#' Ðall€the€rights€and€assume€all€the€obligations€that€nationality€entails.€€Individuals€who€do€notÐ l+à$( Ðtake€advantage€of€this€opportunity€and€thus€escape€the€obligations€nationality€imposes€canÐ Œ Ðbe€deemed€to€have€opted€to€remain€aliens€in€Canada.€€They€have€every€right€to€do€so,€butÐ xì Ðmust€also€bear€the€consequences.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€Stewart's€criminal€record€disqualifiedÐ dØ Ðhim€from€becoming€a€Canadian€national€cannot€confer€on€him€greater€rights€than€would€beÐ P Ä Ðenjoyed€by€any€other€alien€who,€for€whatever€reasons,€opted€not€to€become€a€CanadianÐ < ° Ðnational.€€Individuals€in€these€situations€must€be€distinguished€from€the€categories€of€personsÐ ( œ Ðdescribed€in€paragraph€12.4€above.€€Ð ˆ(#(# ÐÌà0  à12.9€€The€Committee€concludes€that€as€Canada€cannot€be€regarded€as€Mr.€Stewart'sÐ ì ` Ð"country",€for€the€purposes€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant,€there€could€not€haveÐ ØL  Ðbeen€a€violation€of€that€article€by€the€State€party.€€ÐÄ8 (#(# Ðà0  à...а$ (#(# Ðà0  àòòIndividual€Opinion€by€Ô_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€KleinóóÐœ (#(# ÐÌà0  àBeing€in€full€agreement€with€the€finding€of€the€Committee€that€the€facts€of€the€case€discloseÐ tè  Ðneither€a€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€nor€of€article€17€and€23...I€cannot€accept€theÐ `Ô  Ðway€how€the€relationship€between€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€article€13€has€beenÐ LÀ Ðdetermined.€€Although€this€issue€is€not€decisive€for€the€outcome€of€the€present€case,€it€couldÐ 8¬ Ðbecome€relevant€for€the€consideration€of€other€communications,€and€I€therefore€feel€obligedÐ $˜ Ðto€clarify€this€point.€Ð„(#(# ÐÌà0  àThe€view€suggests€that€there€is€a€category€of€persons€who€are€not€"nationals€in€the€formalÐ è\ Ðsense",€but€are€also€not€"aliens€within€the€meaning€of€article€13"€(paragraph€12.4).€€While€IÐ ÔH Ðclearly€accept€that€the€scope€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€not€entirely€restricted€to€nationalsÐ À4 Ðbut€may€embrace€other€persons€as€pointed€out€in€the€view,€I€nevertheless€think€that€thisÐ ¬  Ðcategory€of€persons€-€not€being€nationals,€but€still€covered€by€article€12,€paragraph€4€-€mayÐ ˜  Ðbe€deemed€to€be€"aliens"€in€the€sense€of€article€13.€€I€do€not€believe€that€article€13€deals€onlyÐ „ø Ðwith€some€aliens.€€The€wording€of€the€article€is€clear€and€provides€for€no€exceptions,€andÐ pä Ðaliens€are€all€non-nationals.€€The€relationship€between€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€article€13Ð \ Ð Ðis€not€exclusive.€€Both€provisions€may€come€into€play€together.€ÐH!¼(#(# ÐÌà0  àI€therefore€hold€that€article€13€applies€in€all€cases€where€an€alien€is€to€be€expelled.€€ArticleÐ  #” Ð13€deals€with€the€procedure€of€expelling€aliens,€while€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and,€underÐ  $€  Ðcertain€circumstances,€also€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant€may€bar€deportation€forÐ ø$l! Ðsubstantive€reasons.€€Thus,€article€12,€paragraph€4,€may€apply€even€though€it€concerns€aÐ ä%X" Ðperson€who€is€an€"alien".€€ÐÐ&D #(#(# ÐÌÌòòFor€dissenting€opinions€in€this€context,€see€Stewart€v.€Canada€óó(538/1993),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/52/40€vol.€IIÐ ”)#& Ð(1€November€1996)€47€(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/58/D/538/1993)€at€Individual€Opinion€by€Laurel€B.€FrancisÐ €*ô#' Ð(dissenting€in€part),€60,€Individual€Opinion€by€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô€and€Cecilia€Medina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô€andÐ l+à$( ÐFrancisco€Ô_ÔJosÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAguilarÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔUrbinaÔ_Ô,€62,€Individual€Opinion€by€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô€and€Julio€Prado€Vallejo,Ð Œ Ð64€and€Individual€Opinion€by€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,€65.Ð xì ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£-‚ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCanepaÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaóó€(558/1993),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/52/40€vol.€II€(3€April€1997)€115Ð < ° Ð(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/59/D/558/1993)€at€para.€11.3€and€Individual€Opinion€by€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_ÔÐ ( œ Ð(concurring),€123.€Ýƒ3£-‚]‚݌Рˆ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ðì `(#(# Ðà0  à11.3€€As€to€the€author's€claim€that€his€expulsion€from€Canada€violates€article€12,€paragraphÐ ØL  Ð4,€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€recalls€that€in€its€prior€jurisprudence,€òò25óó/€€it€expressed€theÐ Ä8  Ðview€that€a€person€who€enters€a€State€under€the€State's€immigration€laws,€and€subject€to€theÐ °$  Ðconditions€of€those€laws,€cannot€regard€that€State€as€his€own€country€when€he€has€notÐ œ  Ðacquired€its€nationality€and€continues€to€retain€the€nationality€of€his€country€of€origin.€€AnÐ ˆü  Ðexception€might€only€arise€in€limited€circumstances,€such€as€where€unreasonableÐ tè  Ðimpediments€are€placed€on€the€acquisition€of€nationality.€€No€such€circumstances€arose€in€theÐ `Ô  Ðprior€case€the€Committee€dealt€with,€nor€do€they€arise€in€the€present€case.€€The€author€wasÐ LÀ Ðnot€impeded€in€acquiring€Canadian€citizenship,€nor€was€he€deprived€of€his€originalÐ 8¬ Ðcitizenship€arbitrarily.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€author€cannotÐ $˜ Ðclaim€that€Canada€is€his€own€country,€for€purposes€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ „ ÐCovenant.€Ðüp(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ðè\(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐÔH(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐÀ4(#(# Ðà0  àòò25óó/€€Communication€No.€538/1993€(òòStewart€v.€Canadaóó),€Views€adopted€on€1€NovemberÐ ¬  Ð1996,€para.€12.2€to€12.9.И (#(# Ðà0  à_________________Єø(#(# ÐÌà0  àòòIndividual€Opinion€by€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_ÔóóÐ\ Ð(#(# ÐÌà0  àWhile€I€share€the€Committeeððs€view€that€there€was€no€violation€of€the€authorððs€rights,€I€wishÐ 4"¨ Ðto€explain€my€reasoning€for€such€a€conclusion.Ð #”(#(# ÐÌà0  àAs€regards€the€alleged€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€I€have€difficulties€in€accepting€theÐ ø$l! Ðmajority€reasoning€in€communication€No.€538/1993€(òòStewart€v.€Canadaóó),€decided€prior€toÐ ä%X" Ðmy€term€as€a€member€of€the€Committee.€€In€my€opinion,€there€are€situations€in€which€aÐ Ð&D # Ðperson€is€entitled€to€protection€òòbothóó€as€an€alien€(i.e.€a€non-citizen)€under€article€13€andÐ ¼'0!$ Ðbecause€the€country€of€residence€being€understood€as€his€or€her€"own€country"€under€articleÐ ¨("% Ð12,€paragraph€4.€€In€paragraph€11.3€of€the€present€case,€reference€is€made€to€the€Views€inÐ ”)#& ÐòòStewartóó€which,€in€my€opinion,€give€too€narrow€a€picture€of€situations€in€which€a€non-citizenÐ €*ô#' Ðis€to€be€understood€to€reside€in€his€or€her€"own€country".€Ðl+à$((#(# Їà0  àBesides€a€situation€in€which€there€are€unreasonable€impediments€on€the€acquisition€ofÐ Œ Ðnationality,€as€mentioned€in€the€Views,€the€same€conclusion€must,€in€my€opinion,€be€madeÐ xì Ðin€certain€other€situations€as€well,€for€instance,€if€the€person€is€stateless€or€if€it€would€beÐ dØ Ðimpossible€or€clearly€unreasonable€for€him€or€her€to€integrate€into€the€society€correspondingÐ P Ä Ðto€his€or€her€òòde€jureóó€nationality.€€Just€to€take€one€illustrative€example,€for€a€blind€or€deafÐ < ° Ðperson€who€knows€the€language€used€in€the€country€of€residence€but€not€the€language€of€hisÐ ( œ Ðor€her€nationality€country,€the€country€of€residence€should€be€interpreted€as€the€person's€"ownÐ  ˆ Ðcountry"€under€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Ð t(#(# ÐÌòòFor€dissenting€opinions€in€this€context,€seeóó€òòÔ_ÔCanepaÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaóó€(558/1993),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/52/40€vol.€IIÐ ØL  Ð(3€April€1997)€115€(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/59/D/558/1993)€at€Individual€Opinion€by€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô€and€CeciliaÐ Ä8  ÐMedina€Ô_ÔQuirogaÔ_Ô,€123€and€Individual€Opinion€by€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô,€124.€Ð °$  ÐÌÌòòÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£A•ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  Ývan€Ô_ÔOordÔ_Ô€v.€The€Netherlandsóó€(658/1995),€Ô_ÔICCPRÔ_Ô,€A/52/40€vol.€II€(23€July€1997)€311Ð tè  Ð(Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/60/D/658/1995)€at€paras.€8.4„8.6.݃3£A•n•ÝŒÐ`Ô (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð8¬(#(# Ðà0  à8.4€€The€Committee€has€noted€the€authors'€claim€that€they€have€been€discriminated€againstÐ $˜ Ðon€the€basis€of€their€nationality,€because€(a)€their€benefits€are€reduced€for€the€period€betweenÐ „ Ðtheir€15th€birthday€and€1€January€1957€that€they€were€not€living€in€the€Netherlands,€whereasÐ üp Ðthey€are€not€reduced€for€Dutch€citizens€living€in€the€Netherlands,€and€(b)€their€benefits€areÐ è\ Ðreduced€and€they€are€required€to€pay€taxes€on€them€whereas€other€former€citizens€of€theÐ ÔH ÐNetherlands,€now€citizens€of€Canada,€Australia€or€New€Zealand€do€not€suffer€similarÐ À4 Ðreductions.€Ð¬ (#(# ÐÌà0  à8.5€€With€regard€to€this€claim,€the€Committee€observes€that€it€is€undisputed€that€the€criteriaÐ „ø Ðused€in€determining€the€authors'€pension€entitlements€are€equally€applied€to€all€former€DutchÐ pä Ðcitizens€now€living€in€the€USA,€and€that€the€authors€also€benefit€from€a€treaty€concludedÐ \ Ð Ðbetween€the€Netherlands€and€the€USA,€which€has€the€effect€of€raising€their€pension€to€aÐ H!¼ Ðhigher€level€than€originally€agreed.€€According€to€the€authors,€the€fact€that€former€DutchÐ 4"¨ Ðcitizens€now€living€in€Australia,€Canada€and€New€Zealand€benefit€from€other€privileges,Ð  #” Ðentails€discrimination.€€The€Committee€observes,€however,€that€the€categories€of€personsÐ  $€  Ðbeing€compared€are€distinguishable€and€that€the€privileges€at€issue€respond€to€separatelyÐ ø$l! Ðnegotiated€bilateral€treaties€which€necessarily€reflect€agreements€based€on€reciprocity.€€TheÐ ä%X" ÐCommittee€recalls€its€jurisprudence€that€a€differentiation€based€on€reasonable€and€objectiveÐ Ð&D # Ðcriteria€does€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26.€òò32óó/м'0!$(#(# ÐÌà0  à8.6€€The€Committee€finds€therefore€that€the€facts€presented€by€the€authors€do€not€raise€anÐ ”)#& Ðissue€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant...This€part€of€the€communication€is€thereforeÐ €*ô#' Ðinadmissible.Ðl+à$((#(# Ðà0  à_________________ÐŒ(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐxì(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐdØ(#(# Ðà0  àòò32óó/€€òòInter€aliaóó,€the€Committee's€Views€with€regard€to€Communication€No.€182/1984,Ð P Ä ÐòòÔ_ÔZwaanÔ_Ô-de€Vries€v.€The€Netherlandsóó,€adopted€by€the€Committee€on€9€April€1987.€Ð< °(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ð( œ(#(# ÐÌÌÓ€ (!"#$%&',(Fìxx(!"#$%&'ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£N¢ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝToala€et€al.€v.€New€Zealand€óó(675/1995),€ICCPR,€A/56/40€vol.€II€(2€November€2000)€35€atÐ ì ` Ðparas.€2.1,€2.5„2.7,€6.3€and€11.2„11.6.݃3£N¢~¢ÝŒÐØL (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...а$ (#(# Ðà0  à2.1€€The€authors€were€all€born€in€Western€Samoa:€Mr.€Toala€was€born€in€1932,€Mrs.€ToalaÐ œ  Ðin€1934,€and€their€adopted€child,€Eka€Toala,€in€1984,€òò1óó/€Mr.€Tofaeono€in€1934€and€Mrs.Ð ˆü  ÐTofaeono€in€1933.€At€the€time€of€the€communication,€the€families€were€residing€in€NewÐ tè  ÐZealand,€where€deportation€orders€were€recently€issued€against€them.€The€families€went€intoÐ `Ô  Ðhiding€in€New€Zealand,€so€as€to€avoid€deportation.€The€authors€claim€that€they€are€NewÐ LÀ ÐZealand€citizens,€and€that€the€acts€of€the€New€Zealand€Government€which€seek€to€removeÐ 8¬ Ðthem€from€New€Zealand€violate€the€Covenant.Ð$˜(#(# Ðà0  à...Є(#(# Ðà0  à2.5€€The€authors€claim€that€they€are€New€Zealand€citizens€pursuant€to€the€decision€of€theÐ üp ÐJudicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council€in€òòLesa€v.€The€Attorney-General€of€New€ZealandóóÐ è\ Ð[1983]€2€A.C.€20.€òò2óó/€In€this€case,€the€Privy€Council€held€that€by€virtue€of€the€BritishÐ ÔH ÐNationality€and€Status€of€Aliens€(in€New€Zealand)€Act€1928,€persons€born€in€Western€SamoaÐ À4 Ðbetween€13€May€1924€and€1€January€1949€(and€their€descendants)€are€New€Zealand€citizens.Ь (#(# ÐÌà0  à2.6€€It€is€stated€that€there€was€considerable€adverse€reaction€in€New€Zealand€to€the€LesaÐ „ø Ðjudgement,€which€was€delivered€by€the€Privy€Council€in€July€1982.€It€was€estimated€thatÐ pä Ðsome€100,000€Samoans€out€of€a€total€population€of€160,000€would€be€affected€by€theÐ \ Ð Ðdecision.€ÐH!¼(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.7€€The€response€of€the€New€Zealand€Government€was€to€negotiate€a€Protocol€to€the€TreatyÐ  #” Ðof€Friendship€between€New€Zealand€and€Western€Samoa.€The€Protocol€was€ratified€on€13Ð  $€  ÐSeptember€1982€by€the€two€parties.€Within€one€month,€the€New€Zealand€Government€passedÐ ø$l! Ðinto€law€the€Citizenship€(Western€Samoa)€Act€of€1982,€which€gave€effect€to€the€Protocol€inÐ ä%X" ÐNew€Zealand,€and€nullified€the€effect€of€the€"Lesa"€decision,€except€for€Ms.€Lesa€herself€andÐ Ð&D # Ða€very€limited€number€of€persons.€Ð¼'0!$(#(# Ðà0  à...Ш("%(#(# Ðà0  à6.3€€The€authors€claimed€that€they€were,€pursuant€to€the€Lesa€ruling,€New€Zealand€citizensÐ ”)#& Ðand€consequently,€had€the€right€to€freely€enter€and€reside€in€New€Zealand€territory,€despiteÐ €*ô#' Ðthe€1982€Act€which€stripped€them€of€their€New€Zealand€citizenship.€The€legislation€inÐ l+à$( Ðquestion€was€enacted€in€1982€after€New€Zealand€had€ratified€the€International€Covenant€onÐ Œ ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights,€but€before€it€ratified€the€Optional€Protocol€in€1989.€TheÐ xì ÐCommittee€considered,€however,€that€the€legislation€in€question€may€have€continuing€effectsÐ dØ Ðwhich€in€themselves€could€constitute€a€violation€under€article€12,€€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ P Ä ÐCovenant.€The€issue€of€whether€these€continuing€effects€were€in€violation€of€the€CovenantÐ < ° Ðwas€one€which€should€be€examined€on€the€merits.€The€Committee€considered€therefore€thatÐ ( œ Ðit€was€not€precluded€òòratione€temporisóó€from€declaring€the€communication€admissible.€Ð ˆ(#(# Ðà0  à...Ð t(#(# Ðà0  à11.2€€With€regard€to€the€authors'€claim€to€enter€and€remain€in€New€Zealand€the€CommitteeÐ ì ` Ðnotes€that€this€claim€depends€on€whether€under€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€NewÐ ØL  ÐZealand€is€or€has€been€at€any€time€their€own€country€and€if€so,€whether€they€have€beenÐ Ä8  Ðdeprived€arbitrarily€of€the€right€to€enter€New€Zealand.€In€this€regard,€the€Committee€notesÐ °$  Ðthat€none€of€the€authors€holds€New€Zealand€nationality€at€present,€nor€do€they€haveÐ œ  Ðentitlement€to€that€nationality€under€New€Zealand€law.€It€also€notes€that€all€the€authors€areÐ ˆü  ÐWestern€Samoan€citizens€under€the€nationality€law€of€that€€country,€which€has€applied€sinceÐ tè  Ð1959.€Ð`Ô (#(# ÐÌà0  à11.3€€The€Committee€notes€that€the€effect€of€the€1982€Lesa€decision€was€to€make€four€of€theÐ 8¬ Ðauthors€New€Zealand€citizens,€as€from€the€date€of€their€birth.€The€fifth€author€Eka€Toala€wasÐ $˜ Ðborn€in€1984,€and€appears€not€to€have€been€affected€by€Lesa.€The€four€authors€who€had€NewÐ „ ÐZealand€nationality€under€the€Lesa€decision,€were€by€virtue€of€that€fact€entitled€to€enter€NewÐ üp ÐZealand.€When€the€1982€Act€took€away€New€Zealand€citizenship€it€removed€their€right€toÐ è\ Ðenter€New€Zealand€as€citizens.€Their€ability€to€enter€New€Zealand€thereafter€was€governedÐ ÔH Ðby€New€Zealand€immigration€laws.ÐÀ4(#(# ÐÌà0  à11.4€€The€Committee's€general€comment€on€article€12€observes€that€"A€State€party€must€notÐ ˜  Ðby€stripping€a€person€of€nationality€or€by€expelling€an€individual€to€a€third€country,€arbitrarilyÐ „ø Ðprevent€that€person€from€returning€to€his€or€her€own€country."€In€this€case,€the€CommitteeÐ pä Ðconsiders€that€the€circumstances€in€which€the€authors€gained€and€then€lost€New€ZealandÐ \ Ð Ðcitizenship€need€to€be€examined€in€the€context€of€the€issues€which€arise€under€article€12(4).€ÐH!¼(#(# ÐÌà0  à11.5€€The€Committee€notes€that€in€1982€the€authors€had€no€connection€with€New€Zealand€byÐ  #” Ðreason€of€birth,€descent€from€any€New€Zealander,€ties€with€New€Zealand€or€residence€in€NewÐ  $€  ÐZealand.€They€were€unaware€of€any€claim€to€New€Zealand€citizenship€at€the€time€of€the€LesaÐ ø$l! Ðdecision€and€had€acquired€New€Zealand€citizenship€involuntarily.€It€also€appears€that,€withÐ ä%X" Ðthe€exception€of€Mr€Toala,€none€of€the€authors€had€ever€been€in€New€Zealand.€All€theseÐ Ð&D # Ðcircumstances€make€it€arguable€that€New€Zealand€did€not€become€their€"own€country"€byÐ ¼'0!$ Ðvirtue€of€the€Lesa€decision.€€But€in€any€event,€the€Committee€does€not€consider€that€theÐ ¨("% Ðremoval€of€their€New€Zealand€citizenship€was€arbitrary.€In€addition€to€the€circumstancesÐ ”)#& Ðalready€mentioned,€none€of€the€authors€had€been€in€New€Zealand€between€the€date€of€theÐ €*ô#' ÐLesa€decision€and€the€passage€of€the€1982€Act.€They€had€never€applied€for€a€New€ZealandÐ l+à$( Ðpassport€or€claimed€to€exercise€any€rights€as€New€Zealand€citizens.€The€Committee€isÐ Œ Ðtherefore€of€the€view€that€article€12(4)€was€not€violated€in€the€authors'€case.€Ðxì(#(# ÐÌà0  à11.6€€As€to€the€claim€that€the€1982€Act€was€discriminatory,€the€Committee€observes€that€theÐ P Ä ÐAct€applied€only€to€those€Western€Samoans€were€not€resident€in€New€Zealand€and€that€theÐ < ° Ðauthors€at€that€time€were€not€resident€in€New€Zealand€and€had€no€ties€with€that€country.Ð ( œ ÐThere€is€no€basis€for€concluding€that€the€application€of€the€Act€to€the€authors€wasÐ  ˆ Ðdiscriminatory€contrary€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð t(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ðì `(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐØL (#(# ÐÌà0  àòò1óó/€€It€is€stated€that€Eka€Toala€is€adopted€by€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Toala,€and€as€a€descendent€to€themÐ °$  Ðentitled€to€all€rights€that€they€are€entitled€to;€reference€is€made€to€the€New€Zealand€AdoptionÐ œ  ÐAct€1955,€Section€16€(2):€"The€adopted€child€shall€€be€deemed€to€become€the€child€of€theÐ ˆü  Ðadoptive€parent,€and€the€adoptive€parent€shall€be€deemed€to€become€the€parent€of€€the€child,Ð tè  Ðas€if€the€child€had€been€born€to€that€parent€in€lawful€wedlock."€Ð`Ô (#(# ÐÌà0  àòò2óó/€€Judgment€delivered€on€28€July€1982.€Ð8¬(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ð$˜(#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£œÄÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝKarakurt€v.€Austriaóó€(965/2000),€ICCPR,€A/57/40€vol.€II€(4€April€2002)€304Ð è\ Ð(CCPR/C/74/D/965/2000)€at€paras.€3.1„3.2,€3.4,€7.5,€8.3,€8.4,€9,€10€and€Individual€OpinionÐ ÔH Ðby€Sir€Nigel€Rodley€and€Mr.€Martin€Scheinin€(partly€dissenting),€311.݃3£œÄÌÄÝŒÐÀ4(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...И (#(# Ðà0  à3.1€€The€author€possesses€(solely)€Turkish€citizenship,€while€holding€an€open-endedÐ „ø Ðresidence€permit€in€Austria.€He€is€an€employee€of€the€'Association€for€the€Support€ofÐ pä ÐForeigners'€in€Linz,€which€employs€10€persons€in€total.€On€24€May€1994,€there€was€anÐ \ Ð Ðelection€for€the€Association's€work-council€('Betriebsrat')€which€has€statutory€rights€andÐ H!¼ Ðresponsibilities€to€promote€staff€interests€and€to€supervise€compliance€with€work€conditions.Ð 4"¨ ÐThe€author,€who€fulfilled€the€formal€legal€requirements€of€being€over€19€years€old€and€havingÐ  #” Ðbeen€employed€for€over€six€months,€and€another€employee,€Mr€Vladimir€Polak,€were€bothÐ  $€  Ðelected€to€the€two€available€spaces€on€the€work-council.Ðø$l!(#(# ÐÌà0  à3.2€€On€1€July€1994,€Mr€Polak€applied€to€the€Linz€Regional€Court€for€the€author€to€beÐ Ð&D # Ðstripped€of€his€elected€position€on€the€grounds€that€he€had€no€standing€to€be€a€candidate€forÐ ¼'0!$ Ðthe€work-council.€€On€15€September€1994,€the€Court€granted€the€application,€on€the€basis€thatÐ ¨("% Ðthe€relevant€labour€law,€that€is€s.€53(1)€Industrial€Relations€Act€(Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz),Ð ”)#& Ðlimited€the€entitlement€to€stand€for€election€to€such€work-councils€to€Austrian€nationals€orÐ €*ô#' Ðmembers€€of€the€European€Economic€Area€(EEA).€Accordingly,€the€author,€satisfying€neitherÐ l+à$( Ðcriteria,€was€excluded€from€standing€for€the€work-council.ÐŒ(#(# Ðà0  à...Ðxì(#(# Ðà0  à3.4€€On€21€December€1995,€the€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€author's€appeal€and€denied€€theÐ dØ Ðrequest€for€a€constitutional€reference.€The€Court€considered€that€the€work-council€was€notÐ P Ä Ðan€'association'€within€the€meaning€of€Art.€11€ECHR.€The€work-council€was€not€anÐ < ° Ðassociation€formed€on€a€voluntary€and€private€basis,€but€its€organisation€and€functions€wereÐ ( œ Ðdetermined€by€law€and€was€comparable€to€a€chamber€of€trade.€Nor€were€the€staff€as€such€anÐ  ˆ Ðindependent€association,€as€they€were€not€a€group€of€persons€associated€on€a€voluntary€basis.Ð  t ÐAs€to€arguments€of€discrimination€against€foreigners,€the€Supreme€Court,€referring€to€theÐ ì ` ÐState€party's€obligations€under€the€International€Convention€for€the€Elimination€of€All€FormsÐ ØL  Ðof€Racial€Discrimination,€considered€the€difference€in€treatment€between€Austrian€nationalsÐ Ä8  Ðand€foreigners€to€be€justified€both€under€the€distinctions€that€the€European€economic€treatiesÐ °$  Ðdraw€in€labour€matters€between€nationals€and€non-nationals,€and€also€on€account€of€theÐ œ  Ðparticular€relationship€between€nationals€and€their€home€State.€Moreover,€as€a€foreigner'sÐ ˆü  Ðstay€could€be€limited€and€subjected€to€administrative€decision,€the€statutory€period€ofÐ tè  Ðmembership€in€a€work-council€was€potentially€in€conflict.Ð`Ô (#(# Ðà0  à...ÐLÀ(#(# Ðà0  à7.5€€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€State€party's€reservation€to€article€26,€according€toÐ 8¬ Ðwhich€the€State€party€understood€this€provision€"to€mean€that€it€does€not€exclude€differentÐ $˜ Ðtreatment€of€Austrian€nationals€and€aliens,€as€is€also€permissible€under€article€1,€paragraphÐ „ Ð2,€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÐ üp ÐDiscrimination."€€The€Committee€considers€itself€precluded,€as€a€consequence,€fromÐ è\ Ðexamining€the€communication€insofar€as€it€argues€an€unjustified€distinction€in€the€StateÐ ÔH Ðparty's€law€between€Austrian€nationals€and€the€author.€However,€the€Committee€is€notÐ À4 Ðprecluded€from€examining€the€claim€relating€to€the€further€distinction€made€in€the€StateÐ ¬  Ðparty's€law€between€aliens€being€EEA€nationals€and€the€author€as€another€alien.€In€thisÐ ˜  Ðrespect€the€Committee€finds€the€communication€admissible€and€proceeds€without€delay€toÐ „ø Ðthe€examination€of€the€merits.€€€Ðpä(#(# Ðà0  à...Ð\ Ð(#(# Ðà0  à8.3€€In€assessing€the€differentiation€in€the€light€of€article€26,€the€Committee€recalls€itsÐ H!¼ Ðconstant€jurisprudence€that€not€all€distinctions€made€by€a€State€party's€law€are€inconsistentÐ 4"¨ Ðwith€this€provision,€if€they€are€justified€on€reasonable€and€objective€grounds.òò7óó/€Ð #”(#(# ÐÌà0  à8.4€€In€the€present€case,€the€State€party€has€granted€the€author,€a€non-Austrian/EEA€national,Ð ø$l! Ðthe€right€to€work€in€its€territory€for€an€open-ended€period.€The€question€therefore€is€whetherÐ ä%X" Ðthere€are€reasonable€and€objective€grounds€justifying€exclusion€of€the€author€from€a€close€andÐ Ð&D # Ðnatural€incident€of€employment€in€the€State€party€otherwise€available€to€EEA€nationals,Ð ¼'0!$ Ðnamely€the€right€to€stand€for€election€to€the€relevant€work-council,€on€the€basis€of€hisÐ ¨("% Ðcitizenship€alone.€Although€the€Committee€had€found€in€one€case€(No.€658/1995,€òòVan€OordÐ ”)#& Ðv.€The€Netherlandsóó)€that€an€international€agreement€that€confers€preferential€treatment€toÐ €*ô#' Ðnationals€of€a€State€party€to€that€agreement€might€constitute€an€objective€and€reasonableÐ l+à$( Ðground€for€differentiation,€no€general€rule€can€be€drawn€therefrom€to€the€effect€that€such€anÐ Œ Ðagreement€in€itself€constitutes€a€sufficient€ground€with€regard€to€the€requirements€of€articleÐ xì Ð26€of€the€Covenant.€Rather,€it€is€necessary€to€judge€every€case€on€its€own€facts.€With€regardÐ dØ Ðto€the€case€at€hand,€the€Committee€has€to€take€into€account€the€function€of€a€member€of€aÐ P Ä Ðwork€council,€i.e.,€to€promote€staff€interests€and€to€supervise€compliance€with€workÐ < ° Ðconditions€(see€para.€3.1).€In€view€of€this,€it€is€not€reasonable€to€base€a€distinction€betweenÐ ( œ Ðaliens€concerning€their€capacity€to€stand€for€election€for€a€work€council€solely€on€theirÐ  ˆ Ðdifferent€nationality.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€author€has€been€the€subjectÐ  t Ðof€discrimination€in€violation€of€article€26.Ðì `(#(# ÐÌà0  à9.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee...is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€it€disclose€a€violationÐ Ä8  Ðof€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð°$ (#(# ÐÌà0  à10.€€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€underÐ ˆü  Ðan€obligation€to€provide€the€author€with€an€effective€remedy,€consisting€of€modifying€theÐ tè  Ðapplicable€law€so€that€no€improper€differentiation€is€made€between€persons€in€the€author'sÐ `Ô  Ðsituation€and€EEA€nationals.€ÐLÀ(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ð8¬(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐ$˜(#(# Ðà0  à...Є(#(# Ðà0  àòò7óó/€€See,€for€example,€òòBroeks€v.€The€Netherlandsóó€(Communication€172/1984),€òòSprenger€v.€TheÐ üp ÐNetherlandsóó€(Communication€395/1990)€and€òòKavanagh€v.€Irelandóó€(819/1998).Ðè\(#(# Ðà0  à_________________ÐÔH(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐÀ4(#(# Ðà0  àòòIndividual€Opinion€by€Sir€Nigel€Rodley€and€Mr.€Martin€Scheinin€(partly€dissenting)óóЬ (#(# ÐÌà0  àWe€share€the€Committee's€views€that€there€was€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð „ø ÐHowever,€we€take€the€position€that€the€State€party's€reservation€under€that€provision€shouldÐ pä Ðnot€be€understood€to€preclude€the€Committee's€competence€to€examine€the€issue€whether€theÐ \ Ð Ðdistinction€between€Austrian€nationals€and€aliens€is€contrary€to€article€26.ÐH!¼(#(# ÐÌà0  àBoth€the€wording€of€the€reservation€and€the€State€party's€submission€in€the€present€case€referÐ  #” Ðto€Austria's€intention€to€harmonise€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant€with€those€it€hasÐ  $€  Ðundertaken€pursuant€to€the€Convention€for€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÐ ø$l! ÐDiscrimination€(CERD).€€Hence,€the€effect€of€the€reservation,€interpreted€according€to€theÐ ä%X" Ðordinary€meaning€of€its€terms,€is€that€the€Committee€is€precluded€from€assessing€whether€aÐ Ð&D # Ðdistinction€made€between€Austrian€nationals€and€aliens€amounts€to€such€discrimination€onÐ ¼'0!$ Ðgrounds€of€"race,€colour,€descent€or€national€or€ethnic€origin"òò1óó/€that€is€incompatible€withÐ ¨("% Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.Д)#&(#(# ÐÌà0  àHowever,€in€its€practice€the€Committee€has€not€addressed€distinctions€based€on€citizenshipÐ l+à$( Ðfrom€the€perspective€of€race€colour,€ethnicity€or€similar€notions€but€as€a€self-standing€issueÐ Œ Ðunder€article€26.òò2óó/€€In€our€view€distinctions€based€on€citizenship€fall€under€the€notion€ofÐ xì Ð"other€status"€in€article€26€and€not€under€any€of€the€grounds€of€discrimination€covered€byÐ dØ Ðarticle€1,€paragraph€1,€of€the€CERD.ÐP Ä(#(# ÐÌà0  àConsequently,€the€Austrian€reservation€to€article€26€does€not€affect€the€Committee'sÐ ( œ Ðcompetence€to€examine€whether€a€distinction€made€between€citizens€and€aliens€amounts€toÐ  ˆ Ðprohibited€discrimination€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant€on€other€grounds€that€thoseÐ  t Ðcovered€also€by€the€CERD.€€€Consequently,€the€Committee€is€not€prevented€from€assessingÐ ì ` Ðwhether€a€distinction€based€on€citizenship€is€per€se€incompatible€with€article€26€in€the€currentÐ ØL  Ðcase.ÐÄ8 (#(# ÐÌà0  àFor€us,€therefore,€the€issue€before€the€Committee€is€that€of€the€compatibility€with€itsÐ œ  Ðobligations€under€article€26€of€the€State€party's€legislation€as€applied€in€the€present€caseÐ ˆü  Ðpreventing€an€alien€from€standing€for€elective€office€in€a€work-council.€€Nothing€in€the€StateÐ tè  Ðparty's€response€persuades€us€that€the€restriction€is€either€reasonable€or€objective.€€ThereinÐ `Ô  Ðlies€the€State€party's€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.ÐLÀ(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ð8¬(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐ$˜(#(# ÐÌà0  àòò1óó/€€The€terms€used€in€article€1,€paragraph€1,€€of€the€CERD.€€Article€1,€paragraph€2,€of€theÐ üp ÐCERD€makes€it€clear€that€citizenship€is€not€covered€by€the€notion€of€"national€origin".Ðè\(#(# ÐÌà0  àòò2óó/€€Ibrahima€Gueye€and€742€other€retired€Senegalese€members€of€the€òòFrench€Army€v.€FranceóóÐ À4 Ð(Communication€No.€196/1985).Ь (#(# Ðà0  à_________________И (#(# ÐÌÌÓ€ (!"#$%&'(Fìxx(!"#$%&',ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£7ôÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝòòRajan€v.€New€Zealandóó€(820/1998),€ICCPR,€A/58/40€vol.€II€(6€August€2003)€410Ð \ Ð Ð(CCPR/C/78/D/820/1998)€at€paras.€2.1„2.4€and€7.5.€Ýƒ3£7ôdôÝŒÐH!¼(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð #”(#(# Ðà0  à2.1€€€Mr.€Rajan€emigrated€to€Australia€in€1988,€where€he€was€granted€a€residence€permit€onÐ  $€  Ð19€February€1990,€on€the€basis€of€his€òòde€facto€óórelationship€with€an€Australian€woman.€Ð ø$l! ÐSubsequently,€in€1994,€the€woman€was€convicted€in€Australia€of€making€a€false€statementÐ ä%X" Ðin€Mr.€Rajanððs€application€for€residence.€€In€1990,€Mr.€Rajan€married€Sashi€Kantra€Rajan€inÐ Ð&D # ÐFiji,€who€followed€him€to€Australia€in€1991,€where€she€obtained€a€residence€permit€on€herÐ ¼'0!$ Ðhusbandððs€residency€status.€€In€1991,€Australian€authorities€became€aware€that€the€claimedÐ ¨("% Ðòòde€facto€óórelationship€was€fraudulent€and€started€taking€action€against€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Rajan,Ð ”)#& Ðas€well€as€against€Mr.€Rajanððs€brother€(Bal)€and€sister€who€were€believed€to€have€obtainedÐ €*ô#' ÐAustralian€residency€under€similarly€false€pretences.€€On€2€February€1992,€son€Vicky€wasÐ l+à$( Ðborn€in€Australia.€€On€22€April€1992,€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajanÔ_Ôððs€brother€(Bal)€was€arrested€on€ground€ofÐ Œ Ðfalse€immigration,€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajanÔ_Ô€was€advised€of€a€pending€interview€by€authorities.Ðxì(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.2€€€The€following€day,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Ô_ÔRajanÔ_Ô€migrated€to€New€Zealand.€€They€did€not€discloseÐ P Ä Ðevents€transpiring€in€Australia,€and€were€granted€New€Zealand€residence€permits€on€the€basisÐ < ° Ðof€their€Australian€permits.€€On€24€April€1992,€Mr.€Rajanððs€brother€(Bal)€also€left€AustraliaÐ ( œ Ðfor€New€Zealand.€€On€30€April€1992,€the€Australian€authorities€cancelled€Mr.€and€Mrs.Ð  ˆ ÐÔ_ÔRajanÔ_Ôððs€Australian€permits.€€On€5€June€1992,€the€New€Zealand€authorities€were€informed€thatÐ  t ÐMr.€and€Mrs.€Rajan€were€deemed€to€have€absconded€from€Australia€and€were€prohibitedÐ ì ` Ðfrom€re„entering€Australia.€€On€3€July€1992,€Mr.€Rajan€admitted€to€New€Zealand€authoritiesÐ ØL  Ðthat€his€original€òòde€facto€óórelationship€in€Australia€was€not€genuine.€€Following€investigationsÐ Ä8  Ðby€the€authorities,€including€interviews€with€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Rajan,€the€Minister€ofÐ °$  ÐImmigration,€on€21€June€1994€revoked€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Rajanððs€residence€permits€on€the€basisÐ œ  Ðthat€Mr.€Rajan€had€failed€to€disclose€that€the€Australian€documentation€(upon€which€the€NewÐ ˆü  ÐZealand€permits€were€founded)€was€dishonestly€obtained.€Ðtè (#(# ÐÌà0  à2.3€€€Mrs.€Rajan,€not€having€disclosed€these€facts€in€an€application€for€citizenship€to€theÐ LÀ ÐMinistry€of€Internal€Affairs,€was€granted€citizenship€on€26€October€1994,€whereby,€under€s.8Ð 8¬ Ðof€the€Citizenship€Act€1977,€her€Fijian€citizenship€was€automatically€annulled.€€In€earlyÐ $˜ Ð1995,€her€son€Vicky€was€also€granted€New€Zealand€citizenship.€€On€19€April€1995,€theÐ „ ÐMinister€of€Internal€Affairs€issued€notice€of€intention€to€revoke€citizenship€on€the€groundsÐ üp Ðthat€it€was€procured€by€fraud,€false€representation,€wilful€concealment€of€relevantÐ è\ Ðinformation€or€by€mistake.ÐÔH(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.4€€€On€31€July€1995,€the€High€Court€dismissed€an€appeal€against€the€revocation€ofÐ ¬  Ðresidence€permits€and€an€application€for€judicial€review€of€the€Ministerððs€decision€to€revoke,Ð ˜  Ðfinding€that€they€had€been€procured€by€fraud€and€false€and€misleading€representation.€€TheÐ „ø ÐCourt€considered€there€was€no€threat€to€the€family€unit,€as€the€child€could€live€with€theÐ pä Ðparents€in€Fiji€and,€if€he€so€wished,€return€to€New€Zealand€in€his€own€right.€€The€Court€ofÐ \ Ð ÐAppeal€dismissed€their€appeal.€€In€March€1996,€a€second€child,€Ashnita,€was€born€andÐ H!¼ Ðautomatically€acquired€New€Zealand€citizenship€by€birth.Ð4"¨(#(# Ðà0  à...Ð #”(#(# Ðà0  à7.5€€€The€Committee€notes€the€claim€that€Vicky€Rajan€will€be€rendered€stateless,€as€a€resultÐ  $€  Ðof€the€revocation€of€his€New€Zealand€citizenship,€thereby€violating€article€24,€paragraph€3,Ð ø$l! Ðof€the€Covenant.€€It€appears,€however,€from€the€materials€before€the€Committee,€that€VickyÐ ä%X" ÐÔ_ÔRajanÔ_Ô€still€retains€his€Australian€citizenship€and,€therefore,€no€issue€under€article€24,Ð Ð&D # Ðparagraph€3,€of€the€Covenant€arises.€€This€claim€in€the€communication€is€thereforeÐ ¼'0!$ Ðinadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€€Taking€into€accountÐ ¨("% Ðthat€the€Fijian€authorities€have€confirmed€that€Mrs.€Rajanððs€Fijian€passport€remains€valid€andÐ ”)#& Ðthat€she€continues€to€be€a€Fijian€citizen,€the€same€conclusion€applies€to€any€claim€concerningÐ €*ô#' Ðrevocation€of€Mrs.€Ô_ÔRajanÔ_Ôððs€New€Zealand€citizenship.Ðl+à$((#(# ЇÌÓ€ (!"#$%&'(Fìxx(!"#$%&'ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£+ ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝòòBorzov€v.€Estoniaóó€(1136/2002),€ICCPR,€A/59/40€vol.€II€(26€July€2004)€369€at€paras.€2.1,€2.2,Ð xì Ð7.2„7.4€and€8.݃3£+ X ÝŒÐdØ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ð< °(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à2.1€€From€1962€to€1967,€the€author€attended€the€Sevastopol€Higher€Navy€College€in€theÐ ( œ Ðspecialty€of€military€electrochemical€engineer.€€After€graduation,€he€served€in€KamchatkaÐ  ˆ Ðuntil€1976€and€thereafter€in€Tallinn€as€head€of€a€military€factory€until€1986.€€On€10Ð  t ÐNovember€1986,€the€author€was€released€from€service€with€rank€of€captain€due€to€illness.€Ð ì ` ÐThe€author€has€worked,€since€1988,€as€a€head€of€department€in€a€private€company,€and€he€isÐ ØL  Ðmarried€to€a€naturalized€Estonian€woman.€€In€1991,€Estonia€achieved€independence.ÐÄ8 (#(# ÐÌà0  à2.2€€On€28€February€1994,€the€author€applied€for€Estonian€citizenship.€€In€1994,€an€agreementÐ œ  Ðbetween€Estonia€and€the€Russian€Federation€entered€into€force€which€concerned€theÐ ˆü  Ðwithdrawal€of€troops€stationed€on€the€formerððs€territory€(the€1994€treaty).€€In€1995,€the€authorÐ tè  Ðobtained€an€Estonian€residence€permit,€pursuant€to€the€Aliens€Actððs€provisions€concerningÐ `Ô  Ðpersons€who€had€settled€in€Estonia€prior€to€1990.€€In€1996,€an€agreement€between€EstoniaÐ LÀ Ðand€the€Russian€Federation€entered€into€force,€concerning€ð ðregulation€of€issues€of€socialÐ 8¬ Ðguarantees€of€retired€officers€of€the€armed€forces€of€the€Russian€Federation€in€the€territoryÐ $˜ Ðof€the€Republic€of€Estoniaðð€(the€1996€treaty).€€Pursuant€to€the€1996€treaty,€the€authorððsÐ „ Ðpension€has€been€paid€by€the€Russian€Federation.€€Following€delays€occasioned€byÐ üp Ðdeficiencies€of€archive€materials,€on€29€September€1998,€the€Estonian€Government,€by€orderÐ è\ ÐNo.€931-k,€refused€the€application.€€The€refusal€was€based€on€section€8€of€the€Citizenship€ActÐ ÔH Ðof€1938,€as€well€as€section€32€of€the€Citizenship€Act€of€1995€which€precluded€citizenship€forÐ À4 Ða€career€military€officer€in€the€armed€forces€of€a€foreign€country€who€had€been€dischargedÐ ¬  Ðor€retired€therefrom.И (#(# Ðà0  à...Єø(#(# Ðà0  à7.2€€Turning€to€the€substance€of€the€admissible€claim€under€article€26,€the€Committee€refersÐ pä Ðto€its€jurisprudence€that€an€individual€may€be€deprived€of€his€right€to€equality€before€the€lawÐ \ Ð Ðif€a€provision€of€law€is€applied€to€him€or€her€in€arbitrary€fashion,€such€that€an€application€ofÐ H!¼ Ðlaw€to€an€individualððs€detriment€is€not€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€grounds€òò3óó/.€€In€theÐ 4"¨ Ðpresent€case,€the€State€party€has€invoked€national€security,€a€ground€provided€for€by€law,€forÐ  #” Ðits€refusal€to€grant€citizenship€to€the€author€in€the€light€of€particular€personal€circumstances.€Ð  $€  ÐÐ (#(# Ðà0  à7.3€€While€the€Committee€recognizes€that€the€Covenant€explicitly€permits,€in€certainÐ ä%X" Ðcircumstances,€considerations€of€national€security€to€be€invoked€as€a€justification€for€certainÐ Ð&D # Ðactions€on€the€part€of€a€State€party,€the€Committee€emphasizes€that€invocation€of€nationalÐ ¼'0!$ Ðsecurity€on€the€part€of€a€State€party€does€not,€òòipso€factoóó,€remove€an€issue€wholly€from€theÐ ¨("% ÐCommitteeððs€scrutiny.€€Accordingly,€the€Committeeððs€decision€in€the€particularÐ ”)#& Ðcircumstances€of€òòV.M.R.B€òòóó4óó/€€should€not€be€understood€as€the€Committee€divesting€itself€ofÐ €*ô#' Ðthe€jurisdiction€to€inquire,€as€appropriate,€into€the€weight€to€be€accorded€to€an€argument€ofÐ l+à$( Ðnational€security.€€While€the€Committee€cannot€leave€it€to€the€unfettered€discretion€of€a€StateÐ Œ Ðparty€whether€reasons€related€to€national€security€existed€in€an€individual€case,€it€recognizesÐ xì Ðthat€its€own€role€in€reviewing€the€existence€and€relevance€of€such€considerations€will€dependÐ dØ Ðon€the€circumstances€of€the€case€and€the€relevant€provision€of€the€Covenant.€€WhereasÐ P Ä Ðarticles€19,€21€and€22€of€the€Covenant€establish€a€criterion€of€necessity€in€respect€ofÐ < ° Ðrestrictions€based€on€national€security,€the€criteria€applicable€under€article€26€are€moreÐ ( œ Ðgeneral€in€nature,€requiring€reasonable€and€objective€justification€and€a€legitimate€aim€forÐ  ˆ Ðdistinctions€that€relate€to€an€individualððs€characteristics€enumerated€in€article€26,€includingÐ  t Ðð ðother€statusðð.€€The€Committee€accepts€that€considerations€related€to€national€security€mayÐ ì ` Ðserve€a€legitimate€aim€in€the€exercise€of€a€State€partyððs€sovereignty€in€the€granting€of€itsÐ ØL  Ðcitizenship,€at€least€where€a€newly€independent€State€invokes€national€security€concernsÐ Ä8  Ðrelated€to€its€earlier€status.€€Ð°$ (#(# ÐÌà0  à7.4€€In€the€present€case,€the€State€party€concluded€that€a€grant€of€citizenship€to€the€authorÐ ˆü  Ðwould€raise€national€security€issues€generally€on€account€of€the€duration€and€level€of€theÐ tè  Ðauthorððs€military€training,€his€rank€and€background€in€the€armed€forces€of€the€then€USSR.€Ð `Ô  ÐThe€Committee€notes€that€the€author€has€a€residence€permit€issued€by€the€State€party€and€thatÐ LÀ Ðhe€continues€to€receive€his€pension€while€living€in€Estonia.€€Although€the€Committee€isÐ 8¬ Ðaware€that€the€lack€of€Estonian€citizenship€will€affect€the€authorððs€enjoyment€of€certainÐ $˜ ÐCovenant€rights,€notably€those€under€article€25,€it€notes€that€neither€the€Covenant€norÐ „ Ðinternational€law€in€general€spells€out€specific€criteria€for€the€granting€of€citizenship€throughÐ üp Ðnaturalization,€and€that€the€author€did€enjoy€a€right€to€have€the€denial€of€his€citizenshipÐ è\ Ðapplication€reviewed€by€the€courts€of€the€State€party.€€Noting,€furthermore,€that€the€role€ofÐ ÔH Ðthe€State€partyððs€courts€in€reviewing€administrative€decisions,€including€those€decided€withÐ À4 Ðreference€to€national€security,€appears€to€entail€genuine€substantive€review,€the€CommitteeÐ ¬  Ðconcludes€that€the€author€has€not€made€out€his€case€that€the€decision€taken€by€the€State€partyÐ ˜  Ðwith€respect€to€the€author€was€not€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€grounds.€€Consequently,Ð „ø Ðthe€Committee€is€unable,€in€the€particular€circumstances€of€this€case,€to€find€a€violation€ofÐ pä Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð\ Ð(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÌà0  à8.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee...is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€it€do€not€disclose€aÐ 4"¨ Ðviolation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð #”(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à_________________Ð $€ (#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐø$l!(#(# Ðà0  à...Ðä%X"(#(# Ðà0  àòò3óó/€€See€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòKavanagh€v.€IrelandóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€(No.€1),€case€No.€819/1998,€Views€adopted€on€4€April€2001.ÐÐ&D #(#(# ÐÌÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  àòò4óó/€€[Case€No.€236/1987,€decision€adopted€on€18€July€1988].Ш("%(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Д)#&(#(# ÐÌÔ_ÔÐ l+à$( ЇÓ€ (!"#$%&'(Fìxx(!"#$%&'ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£^+ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝòòMadafferi€v.€Australia€óó(1011/2001),€ICCPR,€A/59/40€vol.€II€(28€July€2004)€208€at€para.€9.6.݃3£^+‹+݌Ќ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...ÐdØ(#(# Ðà0  à9.6€€As€to€whether€Mr.€Madafferiððs€rights€under€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€wereÐ P Ä Ðviolated€by€being€arbitrarily€deprived€of€his€right€to€leave€his€own€country,€the€CommitteeÐ < ° Ðmust€first€consider€whether€Australia€is€indeed€Mr.€Madafferiððs€ð ðown€countryðð€for€theÐ ( œ Ðpurposes€of€this€provision.€€The€Committee€recalls€its€jurisprudence€in€the€case€of€òòStewartÐ  ˆ Ðv.€Canadaóó,€that€a€person€who€enters€a€State€under€the€Stateððs€immigration€laws,€and€subjectÐ  t Ðto€the€conditions€of€those€laws,€cannot€normally€regard€that€State€as€his€ð ðown€countryðð,€whenÐ ì ` Ðhe€has€not€acquired€its€nationality€and€continues€to€retain€the€nationality€of€his€country€ofÐ ØL  Ðorigin.€€An€exception€might€only€arise€in€limited€circumstances,€such€as€where€unreasonableÐ Ä8  Ðimpediments€are€placed€on€the€acquisition€of€nationality.€€No€such€circumstances€arise€in€theÐ °$  Ðpresent€case,€and€neither€are€the€other€arguments€advanced€by€the€authors€sufficient€to€triggerÐ œ  Ðthe€exception.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concludes€that€Mr.€Madafferi€cannotÐ ˆü  Ðclaim€that€Australia€is€his€ð ðown€countryðð,€for€purposes€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ tè  ÐCovenant.€€Consequently,€there€cannot€be€a€violation€of€this€provision€in€the€current€case.Ð`Ô (#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£Ž2ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝEl€Ghar€v.€Libyan€Arab€Jamahiriya€óóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô(ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô1107/2002)ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,€ICCPR,€A/60/40€vol.€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔII€(ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ô2€November€2004)Ð $˜ ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ô156ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€at€parasÔL  ÔÔM  Ô.€2.1„2.4,€3,€7.2,€7.3,€8€and€9.݃3£Ž2¾2݌Є(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...Ðè\(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à2.1€€The€author,€of€Libyan€nationality,€has€lived€all€her€life€in€Morocco€with€her€divorcedÐ ÔH Ðmother€and€holds€a€residence€permit€for€that€country.€€As€a€student€of€French€law€at€theÐ À4 ÐHassan€II€University€faculty€of€law€in€Casablanca,€she€wished€to€continue€her€studies€inÐ ¬  ÐFrance€and€to€specialize€in€international€law.€€To€that€end,€she€has€been€applying€to€theÐ ˜  ÐLibyan€Consulate€in€Morocco€for€a€passport€since€1998.Єø(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.2€€The€author€claims€that€all€her€applications€have€been€denied,€without€any€lawful€orÐ \ Ð Ðlegitimate€grounds.€€She€notes€that€although€she€is€an€adult,€she€attached€to€her€applicationÐ H!¼ Ðform€an€authorization€from€her€father,€who€is€resident€in€the€Libyan€Arab€Jamahiriya,€thatÐ 4"¨ Ðwas€certified€by€the€Libyan€Ministry€of€Foreign€Affairs€in€order€to€obtain€any€officialÐ  #” Ðdocument€required.€€She€adds€that€in€September€2002€the€Libyan€consul€stated,€withoutÐ  $€  Ðgiving€any€details,€that€on€the€basis€of€the€pertinent€regulations€he€could€not€issue€her€aÐ ø$l! Ðpassport,€but€could€only€provide€her€with€a€temporary€travel€document€allowing€her€to€travelÐ ä%X" Ðto€the€Libyan€Arab€Jamahiriya.ÐÐ&D #(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.3€€The€author€also€contacted€the€French€diplomatic€mission€in€Morocco€to€ascertainÐ ¨("% Ðwhether€it€would€be€possible€to€obtain€a€òòlaissez-passeróó€for€France,€a€request€which€theÐ ”)#& ÐFrench€authorities€were€unable€to€comply€with.Ѐ*ô#'(#(# ÐÐ l+à$( Ðà0  à2.4€€Since€she€had€no€passport,€the€author€was€unable€to€enrol€in€the€University€ofÐ Œ ÐMontpellier€I€in€France.Ðxì(#(# ÐÌÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à3.€€The€author€claims€that€the€refusal€by€the€Libyan€Consulate€in€Casablanca€to€issue€her€withÐ P Ä Ða€passport€prevents€her€from€travelling€and€studying€and€constitutes€a€violation€of€theÐ < ° ÐCovenant.Ð( œ(#(# Ðà0  à...Ð ˆ(#(# Ðà0  à7.2€€The€Committee€notes€that€to€date€the€author€has€been€unable€to€obtain€a€passport€fromÐ  t Ðthe€Libyan€consular€authorities€even€though,€according€to€the€authoritiesðð€own€statements,Ð ì ` Ðher€official€application€dates€back€at€least€to€1€September€1999.€€Moreover,€it€is€clear€thatÐ ØL  Ðinitially,€on€18€September€2002,€the€Libyan€consul€had€indicated€to€the€author€that€it€was€notÐ Ä8  Ðpossible€to€issue€her€a€passport€but€that€she€could€be€given€a€òòlaissez-passeróó€for€Libya,€byÐ °$  Ðvirtue€of€a€regulation€that€was€explained€neither€orally€nor€on€the€òòlaissez-passeróó€itself.€€TheÐ œ  Ðpassport€application€submitted€to€the€Libyan€Consulate€was€thus€rejected€without€anyÐ ˆü  Ðexplanation€of€the€grounds€for€the€decision,€the€only€comment€being€that€since€the€author€ð ðisÐ tè  Ða€native€of€Morocco€and€has€not€obtained€a€passport,€this€travel€document€[òòlaissez-passeróó]Ð `Ô  Ðis€issued€to€enable€her€to€return€to€national€territoryðð.€€The€Committee€considers€that€thisÐ LÀ Ðòòlaissez-passeróó€cannot€be€considered€a€satisfactory€substitute€for€a€valid€Libyan€passport€thatÐ 8¬ Ðwould€enable€the€author€to€travel€abroad.Ð$˜(#(# ÐÌà0  à7.3€€The€Committee€notes€that€subsequently,€on€1€July€2003,€the€Passport€Department€sentÐ üp Ða€òòcommuniquóó€to€the€Libyan€consular€authorities€in€Morocco€with€a€view€to€granting€theÐ è\ Ðauthor€a€passport;€this€information€was€certified€by€the€State€party,€which€produced€a€copyÐ ÔH Ðof€the€document.€€The€State€party€alleges€that€the€author€was€contacted€personally€byÐ À4 Ðtelephone€at€home€and€told€to€collect€her€passport€from€the€Libyan€Consulate.€€However,€itÐ ¬  Ðappears€that€thus€far,€despite€the€authorððs€two€visits€to€the€Libyan€Consulate,€no€passport€hasÐ ˜  Ðbeen€issued€to€her,€through€no€fault€of€her€own.€€The€Committee€recalls€that€a€passportÐ „ø Ðprovides€a€national€with€the€means€ð ðto€leave€any€country,€including€his€ownðð,€as€stipulatedÐ pä Ðin€article€12,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant,€and€that€owing€to€the€very€nature€of€the€right€inÐ \ Ð Ðquestion,€in€the€case€of€a€national€residing€abroad,€article€12,€paragraph€2,€of€the€CovenantÐ H!¼ Ðimposes€obligations€both€on€the€individualððs€State€of€residence€and€on€the€State€ofÐ 4"¨ Ðnationality,€and€that€article€12,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€cannot€be€interpreted€as€limitingÐ  #” ÐLibyaððs€obligations€under€article€12,€paragraph€2,€to€nationals€living€in€its€territory.€€The€rightÐ  $€  Ðrecognized€by€article€12,€paragraph€2,€may,€by€virtue€of€paragraph€3€of€that€article,€be€subjectÐ ø$l! Ðto€restrictions€ð ðwhich€are€provided€by€law€[and]€are€necessary€to€protect€national€security,Ð ä%X" Ðpublic€order€(ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôòòordre€publicóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô),€public€health€or€morals€or€the€rights€and€freedoms€of€others,€andÐ Ð&D # Ðare€consistent€with€the€other€rights€recognized€in€the€present€Covenantðð.€€Thus€there€areÐ ¼'0!$ Ðcircumstances€in€which€a€State€may,€if€the€law€so€provides,€refuse€to€issue€a€passport€to€oneÐ ¨("% Ðof€its€nationals.€€In€the€present€case,€however,€the€State€party€has€not€put€forward€any€suchÐ ”)#& Ðargument€in€the€information€it€has€submitted€to€the€Committee€but€has€actually€assured€theÐ €*ô#' ÐCommittee€that€it€issued€instructions€to€ensure€that€the€authorððs€passport€application€wasÐ l+à$( Ðsuccessful,€a€statement€that€was€not€in€fact€followed€up.ÐŒ(#(# ÐÌÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à8.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee...is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€it€disclose€a€violationÐ dØ Ðof€article€12,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant€insofar€as€the€author€was€denied€a€passportÐ P Ä Ðwithout€any€valid€justification€and€subjected€to€an€unreasonable€delay,€and€as€a€result€wasÐ < ° Ðprevented€from€travelling€abroad€to€continue€her€studies.Ð( œ(#(# ÐÌà0  à9.€€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€under€anÐ  t Ðobligation€to€ensure€that€the€author€has€an€effective€remedy,€including€compensation.€€TheÐ ì ` ÐCommittee€urges€the€State€party€to€issue€the€author€with€a€passport€without€further€delay.€Ð ØL  ÐThe€State€party€is€also€under€an€obligation€to€take€effective€measures€to€ensure€that€similarÐ Ä8  Ðviolations€do€not€recur€in€future.а$ (#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ QÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòMarik€v.€Czech€RepublicÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôóó(ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô945/2000ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô),€ICCPR,€A/60/40€volÔL  ÔÔM  Ô.ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€IÔL  ÔÔM  ÔIÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€(ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô26€July€2005ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô)€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô54€at€paras.€2.1„Ð tè  Ð2.4,€6.2„6.5,€7€and€8.€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô݃3£ Q8QÝŒÐ`Ô (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà0  à...ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÐ8¬(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à2.1€€In€1969,€the€author€emigrated€from€Czechoslovakia€to€the€United€States€with€his€family.€Ð $˜ ÐHe€later€became€a€United€States€citizen.€€In€1972,€he€was€convicted€of€fleeing€the€country€byÐ „ Ðthe€Plzen€District€Court;€his€property€was€confiscated,€òòinter€aliaóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôhis€two€houses€in€LetkovÐ üp Ðand€in€Plzen.Ðè\(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.2€€On€23€April€1990,€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Republic€passed€Act€No.€119/1990€Coll.€onÐ À4 ÐJudicial€Rehabilitation,€which€rendered€null€and€void€all€sentences€handed€down€byÐ ¬  ÐCommunist€courts€for€political€reasons.€€Persons€whose€property€had€been€confiscated€were,Ð ˜  Ðunder€section€23.2€of€the€Act,€eligible€to€recover€their€property,€subject€to€conditions€to€beÐ „ø Ðspelled€out€in€a€separate€restitution€law.€€Ðpä(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.3€€On€1€February€1991,€Act€87/1991€on€Extra-Judicial€Rehabilitation€was€adopted.€€UnderÐ H!¼ Ðit,€a€person€claiming€restitution€of€property€had€to€(a)€be€a€Czech-Slovak€citizen€and€(b)€beÐ 4"¨ Ða€permanent€resident€in€the€Czech€Republic€to€claim€entitlement€to€regain€his€or€her€property.€Ð  #” ÐIn€addition,€according€to€the€Act,€(c)€the€claimant€has€a€burden€for€proving€the€unlawfulnessÐ  $€  Ðof€the€acquisition€by€the€current€owner€of€the€property€in€question.€€The€first€twoÐ ø$l! Ðrequirements€had€to€be€fulfilled€during€the€time€period€in€which€restitution€claims€could€beÐ ä%X" Ðfiled,€between€1€April€and€1€October€1991.€€A€judgement€of€the€Czech€Constitutional€CourtÐ Ð&D # Ðof€12€July€1994€(No.€164/1994),€however,€annulled€the€condition€of€permanent€residence€andÐ ¼'0!$ Ðestablished€a€new€time€frame€for€the€submission€of€restitution€claims€by€persons€who€hadÐ ¨("% Ðthereby€become€entitled€persons,€running€from€1€November€1994€to€1€May€1995.€€AccordingÐ ”)#& Ðto€the€author,€this€judgement€established€a€right€to€restitution€which€could€be€exercised€byÐ €*ô#' Ðthose€who€did€not€have€permanent€residence€in€the€country€and€met€the€citizenship€conditionÐ l+à$( Ðin€the€new€time€period.€€However,€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€Constitutional€Court€supportedÐ Œ Ðan€interpretation€to€the€effect€that€the€newly€entitled€persons€were€persons€who,€during€theÐ xì Ðoriginal€period€of€time€(1€April€to€1€October€1991),€had€met€all€the€other€conditions,Ð dØ Ðincluding€the€citizenship€condition,€with€the€exception€of€permanent€residence.€€AlthoughÐ P Ä Ðthe€author€claims€that€he€never€lost€Czech€citizenship,€he€formally€became€Czech€citizenÐ < ° Ðagain€in€May€1993.Ð( œ(#(# ÐÌà0  à2.4€€In€1994,€the€author€filed€two€separate€restitution€claims€with€regard€to€his€houses€inÐ  t ÐLetkov€and€Plzen.€€In€the€first€case€(the€Letkov€property),€the€Plzen-mesto€District€CourtÐ ì ` Ðrefused€the€restitution€claim€on€13€November€1995,€because€the€author€did€not€fulfil€theÐ ØL  Ðcitizenship€requirement€during€the€initial€period€open€for€restitution€claims,€i.e.€1€OctoberÐ Ä8  Ð1991€at€the€latest.€€It€also€found€that€the€third€requirement€for€restitution,€concerning€theÐ °$  Ðunlawfulness€of€the€current€owners€acquisition,€was€not€met€in€the€case.€€This€decision€wasÐ œ  Ðconfirmed€by€the€Plzen€Regional€Court€on€25€March€1996.€€The€authorððs€appeal€to€theÐ ˆü  ÐSupreme€Court€was€dismissed€on€20€August€1997€on€the€ground€that€he€did€not€fulfil€theÐ tè  Ðprecondition€of€citizenship€in€1991.€€The€judgement€confirmed€that€the€new€established€timeÐ `Ô  Ðframe€did€not€change€this€original€requirement€but€gave€non-residents€additional€time€toÐ LÀ Ðlodge€their€restitution€claims.€€It€did€not€consider€the€other€requirements.€€A€further€appealÐ 8¬ Ðto€the€Constitutional€Court€was€rejected€on€12€May€1998.Ð$˜(#(# Ðà0  à...Є(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  à6.2€€The€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€application€to€the€author€of€Act€87/1991Ð üp Ðamounted€to€a€violation€of€his€right€to€equality€before€the€law€and€to€equal€protection€of€theÐ è\ Ðlaw,€contrary€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant.ÐÔH(#(# ÐÌà0  à6.3€€The€Committee€reiterates€its€jurisprudence€that€not€all€differentiations€in€treatment€canÐ ¬  Ðbe€deemed€to€be€discriminatory€under€article€26.€€A€differentiation€which€is€compatible€withÐ ˜  Ðthe€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€is€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€grounds€does€notÐ „ø Ðamount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26€òò6óó/.ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€€Whereas€theÐ pä Ðcitizenship€criterion€is€objective,€the€Committee€must€determine€whether€its€application€toÐ \ Ð Ðthe€author€was€reasonable€in€the€circumstances€of€the€case.ÐH!¼(#(# ÐÌà0  à6.4€€The€Committee€recalls€its€Views€in€the€cases€of€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòSimunekóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòAdamóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòBlazek€óóÔL  ÔÔM  ÔandÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€òòDes€FoursÐ  #” ÐWalderodeÔL  ÔÔM  Ôóó,ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôòò7óó/ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€where€it€held€that€article€26€of€the€Covenant€had€been€violatedÔL  ÔÔM  Ô:€€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôð ðthe€authorsÐ  $€  Ðin€that€case€and€many€others€in€analogous€situations€had€left€Czechoslovakia€because€of€theirÐ ø$l! Ðpolitical€opinions€and€had€sought€refuge€from€political€persecution€in€other€countries,€whereÐ ä%X" Ðthey€eventually€established€permanent€residence€and€obtained€a€new€citizenship.€€Taking€intoÐ Ð&D # Ðaccount€that€the€State€party€itself€is€responsible€for€the€authorððs...departure,€it€would€beÐ ¼'0!$ Ðincompatible€with€the€Covenant€to€require€the€authorð8ðto€obtain€Czech€citizenship€as€aÐ ¨("% Ðprerequisite€for€the€restitution€of€[his]€property€or,€alternatively,€for€the€payment€ofÐ ”)#& Ðappropriate€compensationðð€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôòò8óó/.ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€€The€Committee€further€recalls€its€jurisprudenceÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€òò9óó/ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€that€theÐ €*ô#' Ðcitizenship€requirement€in€these€circumstances€is€unreasonable.€€In€addition,€the€State€partyððsÐ l+à$( Ðargument€that€the€citizenship€condition€was€included€in€the€law€to€incite€owners€to€take€goodÐ Œ Ðcare€of€the€property€after€the€privatization€process€has€not€been€substantiated.Ðxì(#(# ÐÌà0  à6.5€€The€Committee€considers€that€the€precedent€established€in€the€above€cases€also€appliesÐ P Ä Ðto€the€author€of€the€present€communication.€€The€Committee€notes€that€in€the€case€of€theÐ < ° ÐLetkov€property,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€author€did€not€fulfil€the€third€requirement,€ÔL  ÔÔM  Ôi.e.Ð ( œ ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ôproving€that€the€property€was€acquired€unlawfully€by€the€present€owners.€€However,€theÐ  ˆ ÐCommittee€further€notes€that€although€the€lower€courts€took€this€element€into€consideration,Ð  t Ðthe€Supreme€Court€based€its€decision€only€on€the€non-fulfilment€of€the€citizenshipÐ ì ` Ðprecondition.€€In€the€light€of€these€considerations,€the€Committee€concludes€that€theÐ ØL  Ðapplication€to€the€author€of€Act€87/1991,€which€lays€down€a€citizenship€requirement€for€theÐ Ä8  Ðrestitution€of€confiscated€property,€violated€his€rights€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.а$ (#(# ÐÌà0  à7.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee...is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€it€disclose€a€violationÐ ˆü  Ðof€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant.Ðtè (#(# ÐÌà0  à8.€€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€under€anÐ LÀ Ðobligation€to€provide€the€author€with€an€effective€remedy,€which€may€be€compensation,€andÐ 8¬ Ðin€the€case€of€the€Plzen€property,€restitution,€or,€in€the€alternative€compensation.€€TheÐ $˜ ÐCommittee€reiterates€that€the€State€party€should€review€its€legislation€to€ensure€that€allÐ „ Ðpersons€enjoy€both€equality€before€the€law€and€equal€protection€of€the€law.Ðüp(#(# Ðà0  à_________________Ðè\(#(# Ðà0  àòòNotesóóÐÔH(#(# Ðà0  à...ÐÀ4(#(# ÐÔL  ÔÔM  Ôà0  àòò6óó/€€See€communication€No.€182/1984,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòZwaan-de€Vries€v.€The€NetherlandsóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,ÔL  ÔÔM  Ô€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔViews€adoptedÐ ¬  Ðon€9€April€1987,€para.€13.И (#(# ÐÌà0  àòò7óó/€€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔSee€footnote€8.Ðpä(#(# ÐÌà0  àÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôòò8óó/€€See€communication€No.€586/1994,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòAdam€v.€The€Czech€RepublicóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,€Views€adopted€on€23Ð H!¼ ÐJuly€1996,€para.€12.6€and€communication€No.€857/1999,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòBlazek€v.€The€Czech€RepublicóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,Ð 4"¨ ÐViews€adopted€on€12€July€2001,€para.€5.8.Ð #”(#(# ÐÌà0  àÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  ÔÔL  ÔÔM  Ôòò9óó/€€See€communication€No.€516/1992,€ÔL  ÔÔM  ÔòòSimunek€v.€The€Czech€RepublicóóÔL  ÔÔM  Ô,€Views€adopted€on€19Ð ø$l! ÐJuly€1995,€para.€11.6.Ðä%X"(#(# Ðà0  à_________________ÐÐ&D #(#(# ÐÌÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝòòÝ‚3£Â{ÝÔ2FìÔððÔ3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝMauritian€Women€€v.€Mauritiusóó€(35/1978)€(R.9/35),€ICCPR,€A/36/40€(9€April€1981)€134€atÐ ”)#& Ðparas.€9.2(b)2(i)6,€9.2(b)2(ii)3,€9.2(b)2(ii)4€and€10.€€For€text€of€Communication,€seeÐ €*ô#' Ðò òEQUALITY€AND€DISCRIMINATIONó 󀄀GENDER€DISCRIMINATION€„€General.݃3£Â{ò{ÝŒÐl+à$((#(# ÐŒÝ  Ý