WPC[0 WًE{l5*mp֌.fWb:Ym6YQ/ PL$k6>fƖvTQ鉉J\\_kX/E6L@|{5/>V mw[·13'璗o#Vf\ Wec ͉LAk?(:nldqryةQ.`xIWۨ#V"LJu2Ͱ]g:JJSȸyUg`H;\ٱ" Xwws mx|Sd]ƝÂ0ۈ6|#Ne>q ad|8^sӂ5!:֫“gE ?!d!3 K]Ў$BE' !E'y2IbRn6רc %dLF[EwJu`t^)4X a\4":@I#UN %  0: 0M 0A 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0u 0W 06 0 0 0 0 0d 01 0 0 0 0 0m 0B 0 0 0 00x 0< 0 0> 0v 0`V! 0`! 0`" 0`v" 0`" 086# 0n# 02@$ 0r$ 0:n% 0Y% 0_& 0 `& 0jj' 0( B*X* D/* D+* 0* D/`, 0, 06]- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<3/U6o/U>/U*/^ 0w04010@0 mB0NY0HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(\$CEUS.,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*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial-* p* Docume3|xU \!CEUS.,  _  HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Koutny_Ԁv.CzechRepublic  CommunicationNo807/1998 p 20March2000 P  _CCPR_/C/68/D/807/1998 0  ADMISSIBILITY  P  Submittedby:Mr.OtaKoutny   Allegedvictim:TheauthorandhisbrotherAntonin  Stateparty:CzechRepublic  Dateofcommunication:24January1997(initialsubmission) p TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil @ andPoliticalRights, 0 Meetingon20March2000 ` Adoptsthefollowing: @ =  Decisiononadmissibility  ! 1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisOtaKoutny,aCzechcitizencurrentlyresidinginVienna, $" Austria.Hesubmitsthecommunicationonhisownbehalfandonthatofhisbrother,Antonin % # Koutny.Theyclaimtobevictimsofaviolationofarticle26oftheCovenantbytheCzechRepublic. p&!$ Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor P(#& 2.1Theauthor'sauntanduncle,bothCzechcitizens,werecoownersofahouseinPrague,which 0*%( theypurchasedin1935.AftertheSecondWorldWar,thepropertyoftheauntwasconfiscatedunder  +p&) BenesdecreeNo.108/1945andshewasdeprivedofherCzechcitizenshipforallegedhostile ,`'* activitiesagainstCzechoslovakia.However,on5March1947,shewasacquittedoftheaccusations -P(+ bytheExtraordinaryPeople'sCourtandwasgivenbackherCzechcitizenship.However,bydecision -@), of11January1951,theDistrictNationalCouncilapprovedtheconfiscationofherpropertyonthe  basisofBenesdecreeNo.108/1945.Theauntdiedin1975,andtheauthor'smotherwastheonly  heiress.Themothercommencedanactionforreturnofthepropertyon2September1991atthe  DistrictCourtinPrague.Whenshediedon15April1992,theauthorandhisbrothercontinuedthe  lawsuitasherheirs.On12September1995,however,theCourtrejectedtheirclaim,onthebasis p thattheconfiscationhadtakenplacebefore25February1948,thebeginningofthequalifyingperiod `  fortheRestitutionLawNo.87/1991.ItappearsthattheCourtconsideredthatthedecreeof11 P  January1951wasnotanewdecision,butaconfirmationofthedecisiontakenin1945underthe @  BenesDecree.Theauthor'sappealagainstthisdecisionwasrejectedon16February1996,andon 0  24September1996,theConstitutionalCourtrejectedtheauthor'sfurtherapplicationforreview.  p  2.2Itappearsfromthecommunicationthattheauthor'sclaimforrestitutionalsorelatestothepart P  ofthepropertyformerlyownedbyhisuncle.Itissaidthatthispropertywasconfiscatedafterthe @  SecondWorldWar,butnoprecisedateisgiven.Theauthor'sunclediedin1961andhisauntwas 0  theonlyheiress.   Thecomplaint  3.TheauthorcomplainsthattheCourtdidnottakeintoconsiderationthedecreeof11January1951,  whichbringstheconfiscationwithintheambitoftheRestitutionLaw.Accordingtotheauthor,the  Council'sdecisionof1951wasaclearactofpoliticalpersecution,sincehisaunthadbeenacquitted p ofanychargesofhostileactivities.Theauthorconsidershimselfavictimofdiscrimination,because ` hedidnotobtainrestitution,althoughalltherequirementsoftheRestitutionLawhadbeenfulfilled. P Inthisconnection,hesuggestthatthediscriminationmaybeconnectedtohispoliticalviews,since @ heleftCzechoslovakiain1970forpoliticalreasons. 0 TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility ` 4.1TheStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleforfailureto @ exhaustdomesticremedies.TheStatepartysubmitsthattheConstitutionalCourtrejectedthe 0 author'sapplicationbecauseofhisfailuretoprovidesupplementalinformationasrequestedbythe   Court.AccordingtotheStateparty,theConstitutionalCourt,inaccordancewithsection72ofthe ! ActontheConstitutionalCourt,hadrequestedtheauthortospecifywhichoftherightsenumerated "  intheinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentscoveredbyarticle10oftheConstitutionhewantedto #! invoke.Sinceneithertheauthornorhislawyerprovidedthisinformation,theCourtdecidednotto $" proceedwiththecaseandrejectedthecomplaint.TheStatepartynotesthattheCourtnever % # dismissedthecaseonitsmerits,andsuggeststhattheauthorcanpetitiontheConstitutionalCourt p&!$ again. `'"% 4.2TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthattherighttopropertyisnotprotectedbytheCovenantandthat @)$' thecommunicationisthereforeinadmissiblerationemateriae.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotes 0*%( thattheauthorhasnotmentionedanybreachesoftherighttofairtrialoranyinstancesof  +p&) discrimination. ,`'* 4.3TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblerationetemporissincethe -@), allegeddiscriminatoryconfiscationtookplacebeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenant.  Theauthor'scommentsontheStateparty'sobservations  5.1Inhisreply,theauthormaintainsthathehasexhaustedallavailabledomesticremedies.Hestates p thathehasneverbeeninformedofanypossibledefectinhisapplicationtotheConstitutionalCourt. `  5.2Theauthormaintainsthathiscommunicationisadmissiblerationemateriaesinceheisavictim @  ofdiscrimination,inviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant. 0  5.3AstotheStateparty'sargumentthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblerationetemporis,the `  authorsubmitsthathewasinjuredinhisrightsbyCourtdecisionsof12September1995,16 P  February1996and24September1996,alltakenaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenantforthe @  CzechRepublic. 0  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimcontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee  must,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissible  undertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  6.2TheCommitteehasnotedtheStateparty'sobjectionstotheadmissibilityandtheauthor's ` commentsthereon.Itconsidersthatinsofarastheauthorclaimsthatthedecreeof11January1951 P wasdiscriminatory,thisclaimisoutsidetheCommittee'scompetencerationetemporisandthus @ inadmissibleunderarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol. 0 6.3TheStatepartyhasarguedthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblefornonexhaustionof ` domesticremedies,sincetheauthor'sappealtotheConstitutionalCourtwasdefective.Theauthor P haschallengedthis,buttheCommitteenotesfromthetextoftheConstitutionalCourt'sdecisionof @ 24September1996,thattheauthorwasinformedaboutthedefectsofhisappealandgivenan 0 opportunitytoremedyit,whichhefailedtodo.Onthisbasis,theCommitteeconcludesthatthe   communicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b)oftheOptionalProtocolforfailure ! toexhaustdomesticremedies. "  7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: $" (a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticles1and5(2)(b)oftheOptionalProtocol; p&!$ (b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtotheauthor. P(#& ______________ 0*%( ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent ,`'* communication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraNatwarlalBhagwati, -P(+ Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.Pilar_Gaitn_ԀdePombo,Mr.Louis -@), Henkin,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr._Hip;lito_Ԁ_Solari_Ԁ_Yrigoyen_,  Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently p tobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttothe `  GeneralAssembly.] P  #