WPC KoMka&MTQ si}SN-{%w^^6Dˆ[n.XkK3ҚfZ=^t`)>7&[?itCSœlWnYÃX%lD}sAXgZxEvx((6Tt&KfL0 PyIA&VW^M˔BVj K ޴[35ڴOc fD <*#n}N&hK2nۈE_f++v:q%Di,8>SnsAJ|>/^jîC2U>l 0v 0<+ 0Yg 0_ 0i 0N 0( D+G AMr  0 # UNF % M ( N ^ w 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' K. L. v. Denmark, Communication No. 81/1980 (27 March 1981), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 28 (4. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 28 ("Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2E$ .!..      X"XXXX"XXX"  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(.$..      X!XXXX!XXX!HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXMD) <)c(CorelU .!..      X"XXXX"XXX"  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  K.L.v.Denmark | CommunicationNo.81/1980 H 27March1981  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:K.L.on23December1980 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:Denmark ` Dateofdecisiononinadmissibility:27March1981(twelfthsession) ,   DecisiononAdmissibility     Theauthorofthecommunication,dated23December1980,K.L.,Denmark,complainsthat @ decisionsoftheSupremeCourtofDenmark,givenon12December1980inthreecivilcases &v concerningtheauthor,upholdingthedecisionsofthelowercourtinthecasesinquestion,  \ constituteabreachbytheSupremeCourtofarticle2(3)(a),(b)and(c)oftheInternational B CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheauthorrequeststheHumanRightsCommittee ( tosoconfirmandtoprevailupontheStatepartytograntajudicialremedytotheauthorby  wayofreopeningthethreecases.Theauthorexplainsbrieflythatthelowercourthadfound  thatthethreecaseshadnotbeenfiledindueform.This,hestates,shouldnothavehadany   bearinguponthecasesbecausethecourt,underDanishlaw,shouldhaveassistedhimin p!  correctinganyproceduralerrorsinthepresentationofthethreelawsuits;thecourt,however, V"! failedinitsdutyandtheSupremeCourtmerelyupheldthelowercourt'sdecisions,without <#" grantingtheremedysought.TheauthorenclosescopiesofthethreeSupremeCourt "$r# decisions. %X $ Article2(3)oftheCovenantrequirestheStatepartytoensurethatanypersonwhoserights &$"& orfreedomsrecognizedintheCovenantareviolatedshallhaveaneffectiveremedy.The ' #' Committeeobservesthereforethattherecanbenobreachofarticle2(3)unlessaremedy (#( issoughtfortheviolationofoneoftherightsorfreedomsrecognizedelsewhereinthe )$) Covenant.Theauthordoesnotindicatethesubjectmatterofanyofthethreelawsuitsand l*%* itdoesnotappearthattheywereconcernedwithobtainingaremedyfortheviolationofany R+&+ suchrightsorfreedoms.Furthermore,thecommunicationdoesnotcontainanysubstantial 8,', evidencethattherightoffairhearing,aslaiddowninarticle14(1)oftheCovenant,may -n(- havebeenviolated.  Beingunabletofindthatthereareanygroundssubstantiatingtheauthor'sallegationsof | violationsoftheCovenant,theCommitteeconcludes,inaccordancewitharticle3ofthe b OptionalProtocol,thatthecommunicationisincompatiblewiththeprovisionsofthe H Covenant,andthereforedecides: . ~ Thecommunicationisinadmissible.  J