WPC'  (L1U6^oOUZ:p>+P-mX(@7}ikBbh[sX;A`.ܧVwn~ڨ'hR *_ډ@dCyT/yY$p#o b8VZ0Ddd*~g\MO8uO4#X׽3] /\lO!E>1-q,Rwnhc^Gg첄Gw,b,/A9&Ӫ06;x,Fp1W'^_%Ҳ{E tpEnZaBDiGߏF\;蒺Lɫ1ا^`[:==ǘ^>SCM:ODIKU(#rvIa_/3RJ4C VGg6(浧$<'C , 4'2;{&l]1K$.k(Tp&QCX+q{ Uyn{.jP 0P 0< 0iA 0p 0(A D+i AM  0 # UNh % M ( N ^ w 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' V. E. M. v. Spain, Communication No. 656/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/656/1995 (1995).*656/1995 (1995)."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para< :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$  E!..      XXXXXXXX  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(E$..      XXXXXXXXHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXᝇ) Kk)+00U  E!..      XXXXXXXX  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  V.E.M.v.Spain | CommunicationNo.656/1995 H 30October1995  d _CCPR_/C/55/D/656/1995  0 ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:V.E.M. D  Allegedvictim:Theauthor ` Stateparty:Spain , Dateofcommunication:13June1994    TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenant Z onCivilandPoliticalRights, @ Meetingon30October1995,  \ Adoptsthefollowing: (    DecisiononAdmissibility    1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisV.E.M.,aSpanishcitizenresidinginBarcelona, <#" Spain.HeclaimstobethevictimofviolationsbySpainofarticles3;7;14,paragraphs1, "$r# 2,3,(a)to(e),and5;17;and26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights. %X $ Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor: &$"& 2.1Theauthor,amilitaryofficer,was_dishonourably_ԀdischargedfromtheSpanishArmyin (#( 1975byaspecialtribunal(TribunaldeHonor)whichfoundhimguiltyoftoleratingthe )$) alleged_dishonourable_Ԁlifestyleofhiswife.Theauthordidnotappealhissentenceasthe l*%* decisionsoftheTribunaldeHonorwerenotappealableunderarticle40(a)ofthe(old) R+&+ SpanishCodeofMilitaryProcedure(1945). 8,',  -n(- 2.2On5May1991,theauthorfiledanapplicationforreviewtodeclareinvalidthe1975  decisionoftheTribunaldeHonorandthusdeclarenullandvoidtheactbywhichhewas  dismissed.Hefurtherfiledanadministrativecomplaint(_Recurso_Ԁ_Contencioso_Ԁ_Disciplinar_ | _Militar_)withtheSupremeCourt(Tribunal_Supremo_),requestingadeclaratoryjudgmentto b theeffectthattheTribunaldeHonorhadbeen_invalidly_Ԁestablishedandthereforeany H decisionitissuedwouldalsobenullandvoid. . ~ 2.3On30May1994,theMilitaryChamberoftheSupremeCourt(Saladelo_Militar_)  J dismissedthecaseonthegroundsthattheconditionsofarticles47and109ofthelaw  0 governingadministrativeproceduresfortherevisionoffinal(judicial)decisionshadnot    beenmet.Thejudgmentfurtherheldthattheauthor'sappealwasbarredbytherelevant    statutesoflimitations,sincethedeadlineforfilingtheappealhadbeguntorunfromthedate   ofestablishmentoftheConstitutionalCourt(1981);twojudgesoftheSupremeCourt x  appendeddissentingopinionstothejudgmentof30May1994. ^  Thecomplaint: *z  3.1TheauthorcontendsthattheSupremeCourtjudgmentsissuedin1992and1994,which F confirmthejudgmentoftheTribunaldeHonor,constituteviolationsofthefollowing , provisionsoftheCovenant:articles3;7;14,paragraphs1,2,3,(a)to(e),and5;17;and26,  andreferstohispreviouscommunication,insubstantiationofhisclaim.  3.2Theauthorstatesthatthisnewcommunication,thoughrelatingtothesamefacts,is t differentfromcommunicationN467/1991,whosefactshadbeensubmittedtotheEuropean Z CommissionofHumanRights.Heclaims,inthisrespect,thattheobjectofthepresent @ communicationistheviolationofhisrightsbythejudgmentsissuedbytheSupremeCourt &v on5May1992and30May1994.Theauthoremphasizesthisfact,lesttheStateparty  \ contendanewthattheHumanRightsCommitteeisprecludedfromanalysingthe B communicationbecauseithasalreadybeensubmittedtoanotherprocedureofinternational ( investigationorsettlement.  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee:   4.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights V"! Committeemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornot <#" itisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. "$r# 4.2TheCommitteeobservesthatwhileitcannotconsiderfactsoccurredin1975priortothe %>!% entryintoforceoftheCovenantforSpain(27July1977)itcanascertainwhetherthe &$"& proceduralguaranteeswereobservedduringthe1992and1994proceedings. ' #' 4.3TheCommitteehasexaminedthejudgmentsoftheSpanishSupremeCourtof5May )$) 1992and30May1994.Thesejudgmentsrevealthattheauthor'sargumentswereconsidered l*%* bytheCourt.However,theauthorhasnotsubstantiatedhisclaimthattheCourtacted R+&+ arbitrarilyorthatitdiscriminatedagainsthim.Therefore,theCommitteeconcludesthatthe 8,', communicationisinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol. -n(- Ї5.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides:  (a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; | (b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorand,forinformation,totheState H party. . ~ ____________  J 1/ApriorcommunicationfromV.E.M.wasexaminedundernumber467/1991,and    declaredinadmissiblebytheCommitteeon16July1993,underarticle5,paragraph2(a)of    theOptionalProtocol:seeAnnualReportfor1993(A/48/40),VolIII,Annex_XIII.J._   [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion. D  SubsequentlytobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee's *z  annualreporttotheGeneralAssembly.]