WPC3 @GMO7:I H&_pG)_ytU>׳FCGVU}zzq4uA/$qj5 EI1M G͑ ~ceU=*(ZQ DUeJ8 ϼԍEp6TҞtQ=u25˱C8MM^pdn!S"Y(HR0M7Xjc4C՟P.Io` O}cލz#VS.s.fbv/¼;Ւ֒ˌȴiH8}1Cz F/SRu\,# }]/; ':Q}h 5: 9 `=dU3v`jm8Uas!,,!o@@ :24 vzpkDvW6"cSΡ~͓纷o1SzyW#UN % 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0] 09 0 0 0 0 0 0X 0( 0 0 0 0~ 0Y 01 0 0 0 0s 00< 0<l 0 0>f! 0v! 0`" 0`z" 0`" 0`:# 0`# 08# 02$ 02% 06% 0:2& 0Yl& 0_& 0 $' 0j.( 0) B*+ D/F+ D+u+ 0+ D/$- 0S- 06!. 0W. 0:_/ 0^/ 0</30 0U0 0(N1 AMv1U61U>1U*72Na2 Ac2c2c2c2^ 3w343(37373 B-9393 0Nf3f3f3 m3HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKC<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KC<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KC<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?E%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?E%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleKC<6X9`(Courier NewKSD\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKC<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSD\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2F$ !UKUS.,  ($?@A6A<< c<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial5&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK* p*3|x)Hairline d(O$U !UKUS.,  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Prknyi_Ԁ_v._ԀHungary  CommunicationNo.410/1990* p 27July1992 P  _CCPR_/C/45/D/410/1990** 0  VIEWS  P  Submittedby:_Csaba_Ԁ_Prknyi_   Allegedvictim:Theauthor  Stateparty:Hungary  Dateofcommunication:15January1990 p Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:22March1991 P   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil  p andPoliticalRights, ` Meetingon27July1992, @ HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.410/1990,submittedtotheHumanRights   Committeeby_Csaba_Ԁ_Prknyi_ԀundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivil ! andPoliticalRights, "  Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthe $" communicationandbytheStateparty, % # Adoptsits `'"%    Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  0*%( =  Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor: -P(+  -@), 1.Theauthorofthecommunication,dated15January1990,is_Csaba_Ԁ_Prknyi_,aHungarian  citizenandresidentofthecityof_Siofok_,atthetimeofsubmissionservingaprisonsentenceatthe  BudapestPenitentiary,butsubsequentlyreleasedbyvirtueofanamnesty.Heclaimstobethevictim  ofviolationsbyHungaryofarticles9,10and11oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical  Rights.TheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforHungaryon7December1988. p 2.1In1980,theauthorbecamethemanagingdirectoroftheBuildingCooperativeJointVentureof P  thecityof_Siofok_.Forseveralyears,heledthecompanytoprosperity,butageneraleconomic @  downturntowardstheendof1984seriouslyaffectedperformance.Atapproximatelythesametime, 0  thelocalpartycommitteeoftheHungarianSocialistWorkers'partyinitiatedaninvestigationagainst  p  himandthecompany.Accordingtotheauthor,thisinvestigationwasconductedwithaviewto `  removinghimfromhisposition. P  2.2InAugust1986,thedirectorofoneofthecompany'sdepartmentswasarrestedonchargesof 0  fraudandembezzlementoffunds.On3September1986,theauthorwasarrestedandchargedwith   beinganaccessorytofraudandembezzlement.Theauthorclaimsthattheactivitiesofthe  departmentunderinvestigationrepresentednomorethan5percentofthecompany'stotalturnover  andthat,asthedepartmentalactivitieswerecarriedoutsome150kilometresfromheadquarters,it  wasdifficultforhimtoverifythemand,ifnecessary,intervene.  2.3On8February1989,theauthorwasconvictedbythecitycourtof_Kap;;svar_Ԁandsentencedto p twoyears'andeightmonths'imprisonment;propertyvaluedat400,000forintbelongingtohimwas ` confiscated.On13July1989,theCourtofAppealconfirmedtheprisonsentencebutreducedthe P confiscationofpropertyto130,000forint.Itfurtherorderedtheauthortopaylegalexpensesinthe @ amountof60,000forint.HislawyerappliedforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourt,butthe 0 petitionwasdismissedinSeptember1989.Theauthor,whobeganservinghissentenceon13August  p 1989,appealedtotheMinisterofJusticeandrequestedaretrial,withoutsuccess.On26June1990, ` hewasreleasedbyvirtueofanamnestydecree. P Thecomplaint: 0 3.1Theauthorcontendsthathisarrestanddetentionbythepoliceof_Somogy_ԀCountywerearbitrary, ! sincenoadequateevidencecouldbeproducedtosupportthecharges,andthattheconditionsofhis "  pretrialdetentionweredeplorable.Inthiscontext,henotesthatdetaineesinthepolicelockup, #! includinghimself,weredressedinrags,andthathewasnotabletoretrievehisownclothesforan $" entireweek.Onlyfiveminuteswereallowedforbasichygieneinthemorning,andashowercould % # betakenonlyonceaweek;similarly,amerefiveminutesofrecreationperdaywereallowed,which p&!$ consistedofawalkinanopenplaceabout20squaremetresinsize,againstthewallsofwhich `'"% wardersfrequentlyurinated.Mealswerewhollyinadequate,andalthoughtheauthorwasableto P(#& receivesomefoodfromhomeduringweekends,helostover10kilogramsduringfiveandahalf @)$' monthsofpretrialdetention.Thewardersallegedlyintimidatedhimbysuggestingthatifno 0*%( confessionwasobtained,theywouldfabricatedifferent,constantlychanging,chargessoastojustify  +p&) anextensionofthedetention.This,theauthoradds,exposedhimtocontinuedmentalstress. ,`'* 3.2Theauthorcontendsthathewasneverabletoseeacopyofhisindictment,although,when -@), _summonedtothepartyofficeforthefirsttime,theinvestigatorsofhiscasewereinpossessionof  acopy.  3.3Theauthorsubmitsthathedidnothaveafairtrial,andthatthejudicialproceedingsagainsthim  wereatravestyofjustice.Thus,hisapplicationtohavewitnessestestifyonhisbehalfwasrejected p bythecourt;inparticular,thelegaladvisorofhisformercompany,awitnesswhosetestimonywas `  requestedbyboththeprosecutionandtheauthor,wasneverheard,inspiteofthefactthathewas P  knowledgeableaboutthecompany'sfinancialsituation.Theauthorfurthercontendsthatalthough @  someoftheprosecutionwitnessesindirectlyconfirmedhisownversionofthecase,thecourtpassed 0  overtheminsilence.  p  3.4Accordingtotheauthor,thecourtsfailedtoobservetheapplicablerulesanddirectivesofthe P  SupremeCourtofHungarygoverningtheevaluationofevidence.Byfailingtocarryouta @  comprehensiveevaluationofwitnesstestimony,thecourtsallegedlyviolatedthepresumptionof 0  innocence.Theonlyevidenceusedagainsthimwasthatofaformercolleague,whosetestimony,   accordingtotheauthor,wasnotonlyincontradictionwiththatofotherprosecutionwitnessesbut  alsointernallyinconsistent.Thecourtrejectedthetestimonyasanadmissibledefenceforthe  colleagueandaccepteditasevidenceagainsttheauthor.Finally,theauthorcontendsthatthecourt  failedtoconsiderhighlyrelevantcompanydocuments,suchashisinstructionstocompany  departments,theoperationalrulesofthecompany,andmeasuresadoptedbyhimtostreamline  companyactivities. p TheStateparty'sobservations: P 4.TheStatepartyconcedestheadmissibilityofthecommunication.Althoughthearrestandthen 0 thedetention(from3September1986until16February1987)occurredpriortotheentryintoforce  p oftheOptionalProtocolforHungaryon7December1988,convictiononfirstinstanceoccurred ` thereafter,on8February1989.TheStatepartynotesthatsincetheeventsthatoccurredbefore7 P December1988cannotbeconsideredseparatelyfromthecriminalproceedingsagainsttheauthor, @ thecommunicationisadmissible rationetemporis ;itaddsthatallavailabledomesticremedieshave 0 beenexhaustedinthecase.   TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision: "  5.1Duringits41stsession,inMarch1991,theCommitteeexaminedtheadmissibilityofthe $" communication.Itconsideredthattheauthorhadfailedtosubstantiatehisallegationofaviolation % # ofarticle11oftheCovenant.Itfurtherobservedthat,totheextentthattheauthor'sallegations p&!$ pertainedtoevaluationoffactsandevidenceinhiscase,thecommunicationwasinadmissibleunder `'"% article3oftheOptionalProtocol.However,itfoundthattheauthor'sclaimthathewasunableto P(#& obtainacopyofhisindictmentmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph1,andthathisclaim @)$' thatthecourtdeniedhisrequesttohavewitnessestestifyonhisbehalfmightraiseissuesunder 0*%( article14,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.  +p&) 5.2TheCommittee,accordingly,declaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitmightraise -P(+ issuesunderarticles10and14,paragraphs1and3(e),oftheCovenant. -@), ЇTheStateparty'sobservationsandtheauthor'scommentsthereon:  6.1Bysubmission,dated22October1991,theStatepartysubmitsthatithasconductedan  investigationintotheauthor'sallegationsregardingthecircumstancesofhisdetention.Itconcedes  that,afterbeingdetained,theauthor'sclothingwasreplacedbyprisonclothes;itarguesthatthiswas p necessaryforreasonsofsecurity,sincetheauthorwaswearingjeanswithazipper,thatmighthave `  causedinjury.Itsubmitsthattheinvestigatingofficerrequestedtheauthor'swifetobringsuitable P  clothes;itarguesthatthearrivaloftheseclothesafteroneweek,cannotberegardedasunreasonably @  long. 0  6.2Regardingtheauthor'scomplaintthatonlyfiveminutesperdaywereallowedforpersonal `  hygiene,theStatepartyconcedesthatdetaineeshadrelativelylittletimeforpersonalhygieneand P  walking.Itsubmitsthat,inaccordancewiththeregulations,oneandahalfhourwasavailablefor @  12cells,housing40persons.Asregardsthewalkingspace,theStatepartystatesthatthearea 0  measures35squaremetres,andnot20,asallegedbytheauthor.   6.3TheStatepartyfurthersubmitsthattheinvestigationhasrevealedthattheauthorcomplained  aboutthefoodonlyonce;itstatesthatthiscomplaintdidnotrefertothequantity,buttothequality  ofthefood,whichhefoundtoogreasy.Itfurthersubmitsthattheauthorwasexaminedbyapolice  doctor,whoconcludedthatnomedicalobstacleexistedtotheauthor'sdetention.  6.4TheStatepartyemphasizesthatthedetentionregulationshaverecentlybeenamended.Itargues, ` however,thattheregulationsinforceduringtheauthor'sdetentionwerefullyincompliancewith P theCovenant. @ 6.5Asregardstheauthor'sallegationthathehadnotbeengivenacopyoftheindictment,theState  p partyexplainsthattheregulationsatthetimeoftheauthor'sarrestprovidedforthetransmissionof ` theindictmenttothepartycommittee,incaseofpartymemberscommittinganoffence.It P emphasizesthatthisprovisionhassincebeenrepealed. @ 6.6TheStatepartyfurthersubmitsthattheauthorreceivedacopyoftheindictmentbeforethetrial   againsthimstarted.Inthisconnection,theStatepartyarguesthattheHungarianCodeofCriminal ! ProcedureisinharmonywiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.Thelawprescribesthat,onthefirst "  dayofthetrial,theprosecutoraskstheaccusedandhiscounselwhetheracopyoftheindictmenthas #! beendulytransmittedtothemeightdaysbeforethesession.Iftheindictmenthasnotbeen $" transmittedintime,theaccusedandcounselhavetherighttoraiseanobjectionandaskforthe % # adjournmentofthesession.TheStatepartystatesthatthetrialtranscriptshowsthatnoobjectionwas p&!$ raisedbytheauthororhiscounselonthefirstdayofthetrial. `'"% 6.7Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationthathisrequesttohavewitnessestestifyonhisbehalfwas @)$' deniedbytheCourt,theStatepartyconcedesthatthetrialtranscriptshowsthattheCourtdidnothear 0*%( acertainwitness,whosetestimonywasrequestedbytheauthor.However,theStatepartysubmits  +p&) that28ofthe42witnessesandtwoexperts(requestedbytheProsecution)wereheard.Itcontends ,`'* thatthewitnesseswhowerenotheardcouldnotbereachedattheaddressesprovided.Itfurther -P(+ arguesthatboththeCourtoffirstinstanceandtheCourtofAppealconsideredthatitwasnot -@), necessarytoheartheparticularwitnessrequestedbytheauthor.  6.8Finally,theStatepartystatesthatitsMinistryofJusticeneverreceivedtheapplicationfor  review,whichtheauthorallegedlysenton30October1989.Moreover,itobservesthattheMinister  ofJusticehasnopowertoreviewfinaljudgmentsmadebythecourts. p 7.1InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,theauthorstatesthathehasnothingtoaddto P  hisearliercomplaintsabouttheconditionsofdetention.Hereiteratesthathelost10.5kilogramsin @  fiveandahalfmonthsofdetention. 0  7.2HefurtherarguesthatitisincrediblethattheStatecouldnotfindtheaddressesoftwelve `  witnesses.HeallegesthattheStatenevertriedtosummonthem.Hearguesthatinafairtrialall P  witnessesrequestedshouldbesummoned;thattheCourtdidnotfinditnecessarytosummonthe @  witnessrequestedbyhim,is,accordingtotheauthor,aviolationofthepresumptionofinnocence. 0  Hefinallysubmitsthatthetrialrecordswouldsupporthisallegations,butthathedoesnothavethe   meanstohavethemtranslated.  Theexaminationofthemerits:  8.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofallthe  informationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptional p Protocol. ` 8.2TheCommitteewelcomesthedetailedinvestigationinitiatedbytheStatepartywithregardto @ theauthor'sclaimthatthecircumstancesindetentionviolatedhisrightsunderarticle10ofthe 0 Covenant.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotobjectedtothecompetenceofthe  p Committeetoconsiderthisclaim,althoughitrelatestoeventsthatoccurredpriortotheentryinto ` forceoftheOptionalProtocolforHungary,albeitaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenant.Inthese P specificcircumstances,theCommitteeconsidersthatitisnotprecludedfromexaminingthe @ allegation.8.3Astothesubstanceoftheclaim,theCommitteeconsidersthat,inthelightofthe 0 informationprovidedbytheStateparty,itcannotbeconcludedthatthefoodwasinsufficientand   thattheauthorwasmadetowearrags.However,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartydoesnot ! disputetheauthor'sallegationthathewasallowedonlyfiveminutesperdayforpersonalhygiene "  andfiveminutesforexerciseintheopenair.TheCommitteeconsidersthatsuchlimitationoftime #! forhygieneandrecreationisnotcompatiblewitharticle10oftheCovenant. $" 8.4Astotheauthor'sclaimthathehadnotbeenabletoobtainacopyoftheindictmentbeforethe p&!$ firstdayofthetrial,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhascontestedthisallegation.Inthe `'"% absenceofanyfurthercommentsoftheauthor,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonot P(#& discloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant. @)$' 8.5Astotheauthor'sremainingclaimthattheCourtfailedtocallacertainwitnesswhowasof  +p&) importancetohisdefence,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasarguedthattheCourthad ,`'* decidedthatitwasnotnecessarytohearthatwitness.Theauthorofthecommunicationhasnot -P(+ providedevidencewhichwouldjustifyconcludingthattheCourt'srefusal,upheldbytheCourtof -@), Appeal,wassuchastoinfringetheequalityofarmsbetweentheprosecutionandthedefenceand  thatthecircumstancesunderwhichdefencewitnesseswereheardweredifferentfromthoseunder  whichprosecutionwitnesseswereheard.Consequently,theCommitteeisnotable,inthepresent  case,tofindthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(e).  9.TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltothe `  InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdisclose P  aviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant. @  10.TheCommitteeisoftheviewthattheStatepartyshouldofferMr.Prknyianappropriate  p  remedy.Furthermore,whiletheCommitteewelcomesthegeneralimprovementsinprisonconditions `  affordedunderrecentamendments,itobservesthatlegalprovisionshouldbemadeforadequatetime P  bothforhygieneandexercise. @  11.TheCommitteewishestoreceiveinformation,within90days,ofanyrelevantmeasurestaken   bytheStatepartyinrespectoftheCommittee'sViews.  Footnotes  */MadepublicbydecisionoftheHumanRightsCommittee. p **/ThetextofanindividualopinionbyMr.BertilWennergrenisappended. P    Appendix   p  OIndividualopinionsubmittedbyMr.BertilWennergrenpursuanttorule94,paragraph3,ofthe @ Committee'srulesofprocedureconcerningtheCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.410/1990 0 (Prknyiv.Hungary)   1.WhiletheCovenantenteredintoforceforHungaryon23March1976,theOptionalProtocolonly "  enteredintoforceon7December1988.Partoftheinstantcommunicationconcernstheauthor's #! detention,whichlastedfrom3September1986to16February1987,i.e.priortotheentryintoforce $" oftheOptionalProtocolforHungary. % # 2.1Accordingtoarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol,nocommunicationshallbereceivedbythe `'"% CommitteeifitconcernsaStatepartytotheCovenant,whichisnotapartytotheProtocol.AState P(#& partytotheCovenantthatbecomesapartytotheProtocolrecognizesthecompetenceofthe @)$' Committeetoreceiveandconsidercommunicationsfromindividualssubjecttoitsjurisdictionwho 0*%( claimtobevictimsofaviolationbythatStatepartyofanyoftherightssetforthintheCovenant.  +p&) 2.2Accordingtoarticle25oftheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,atreatyorpartofa -P(+ treatymaybeappliedprovisionallypendingitsentryintoforceifthenegotiatingStateshaveso -@), agreed.NosuchagreementaboutaprovisionalapplicationoftheProtocolforHungaryexists.  Article28oftheViennaConvention,regardingnonretroactivityoftreaties,providesclearguidance  inthisrespect:itstatesthat,unlessadifferentintentionappearsfromthetreatyorisotherwise  established,itsprovisionsdonotbindapartyinrelationtoanyactorfactwhichtookplaceorany  situationwhichceasedtoexistbeforethedateoftheentryintoforceofthetreatywithrespecttothat p party. `  2.3TheCommittee'sjurisprudencehasdevelopedinaccordancewiththatprovision.Forexample, @  inCommunicationNo.457/1991(A.I.E.v.LibyanArabJamahiriya)[Declaredinadmissibleon7 0  November1991.]theCommitteeobservesthattheOptionalProtocolcannotbeappliedretroactively  p  andconcludes"thatitisprecluded rationetemporis fromexaminingtheauthor'sallegations". `  3.1TheinstantcasecanbedistinguishedfromtheestablishedjurisprudenceoftheCommitteewith @  regardtotheapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol rationetemporis inthatHungaryhasnotobjected 0  tothecompetenceoftheCommitteetoconsiderthoseoftheauthor'sclaimswhichrelatetoevents   thatoccurredbeforetheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforHungary.However,Idonot  agreewiththemajority'sconclusionthattheCommitteeinthesespecificcircumstancesisnot  precludedfromexaminingtheallegation,sinceIamoftheopinionthattheCommitteeisacting  beyonditscompetenceindoingso.  3.2Theprinciplesenshrinedinarticle28oftheViennaConventionarewellestablishedprinciples p ofinternationallaw;inmostlegalsystemssimilarprinciplesformthebasisforthelegalrules ` regulatingcontractualobligations.Theirmainobjectiveistocreatelegalpresumptionstofacilitate P theconclusionoftreaties,rationalizetheirapplicationandpreventunnecessarydisputesbetween @ parties.Theseprinciplesshouldthereforebestrictlyapplied. 0 3.3InmyopinionaStatepartymayconsenttoawiderapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol ratione ` temporis onlybyanagreementwhichisconcludedwiththeothercontractingStatesparties.Itfalls P outsidethecompetenceoftheHumanRightsCommitteeunderarticle1oftheOptionalProtocolto @ negotiatewithaStatepartytheretroactiveapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol. 0 [DoneinEnglish,French,RussianandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.] ! KO