WPC[0 |ҵ8GI!9S{}?^g7-JO [|p۩y?,3c`Ũj[P0x6$4/XC+OۈV(H9|4P_p)_lXffepC ͳp's13Ҵ]F2U۵#ǙJ!.|#*.3T+ lj0' pƟx@3\^9Q}X5/Q Q&\`UzZܜHOԓ>sH| P"vҀ2d4JZ7|JrO :dV+.PdrWs'>V/b²N&h 0!7  !ݽBmL=WY_$Stt`ZJkw^ͬtd$P^!Y@am6$Ώ ) ɯ?"QfGI#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`Arialt* p* Docume3|xU \!CEUS.,    _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Snchez_Ԁ_L;pez_Ԁv.Spain  CommunicationNo777/1997 p 18October1999 P  _CCPR_/C/67/D/777/1997 0  ADMISSIBILITY  P  Submittedby:Antonio_Snchez_Ԁ_L;pez_Ԁ(representedbyJosLuis_Maz;n_ԀCosta)   Allegedvictim:Theauthor  Stateparty:Spain  Dateofcommunication:22October1996 p TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil @ andPoliticalRights, 0 Meetingon18October1999 ` Adoptsthefollowing: @    Decisiononadmissibility  ! D1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.Antonio_Snchez_Ԁ_L;pez_,aprimaryschoolteacherliving $" inMolinade_Segura_,Murcia,Spain.HeclaimsthatheisavictimofaviolationbySpainofarticle % # 14,paragraphs2and3(g),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heis p&!$ representedbycounsel,Mr.JosLuis_Maz;n_ԀCosta. `'"% Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor @)$' 2.1On5May1990,theauthorwasdrivinghiscarat80km/hinanareawherethespeedlimitwas  +p&) 60km/h.Thecarwasphotographedafterbeingdetectedbythepoliceradar.TheGeneral ,`'* DepartmentofTraffic(MinistryoftheInterior)askedhim,astheownerofthevehiclebymeansof -P(+ whichtheoffencehadbeencommitted,toidentifytheperpetratoroftheoffenceordriverofthe -@), vehicle,inotherwords,himself.Thisrequestwasmadeonthebasisofarticle72(3)ofRoyal  LegislativeDecreeNo.339/1990(RoadSafetyActLeyde_Seguridad_ԀVial(_LSV_)),whichstates:  "Theownerofthevehicle,onbeingdulyaskedtodoso,hasthedutytoidentifythedriver  responsiblefortheoffence;ifhefailstofulfilthisobligationpromptlywithoutjustifiedcause,he  shallbeliabletoafineforhavingcommittedaseriousmisdemeanour". p 2.2Pursuanttothisrequestandexercisingthefundamentalrightnottoconfessguilt,Mr._Snchez_ P  _L;pez_Ԁsentthetrafficauthoritiesaletterinwhichhestatedthathewasnotthedriverofthevehicle @  anddidnotknowwhohadbeendrivingitsincehehadlentittoseveralpeopleduringthatperiod. 0  Astheperpetratorofaseriousmisdemeanour,hewasfined50,000pesetas(thespeedingfinewas  p  25,000pesetas). `  2.3Theauthortookhiscasetothecourts(AdministrativeLitigationDivision,Murcia),claimingthat @  theimpositionofthefineconstitutedaviolationofhisfundamentalrights,inparticulartherightto 0  presumptionofinnocence,therightnottoconfessguiltandtherightnottotestifyagainstoneself,   allofwhicharerecognizedinarticle24(2)oftheSpanishConstitution.Healsorequestedthatan  actionofunconstitutionalityshouldbebroughtbeforetheSpanishConstitutionalTribunal.The  competentDivisionrejectedtheappeal,statingthatthepenaltywaslawful.  2.4Thedecisionwasthesubjectofanactionfor_amparo_beforetheConstitutionalTribunal,which,  inasubstantiateddecisionof2February1996,dismissedtheappeal,citingthedoctrineestablished p inanotherdecisionadoptedon21December1995bythatTribunalinplenaryresolvinganumber ` ofquestionsofunconstitutionalityraisedbyjudicialbodiesconcerningarticle72(3)ofthe_LSV_. P 2.5Counselmaintainsthatthedecisioniscontradictoryinthatitrecognizesthefundamentalright 0 nottotestifyagainstoneselfasanintegralpartoftheSpanishConstitution,arightwhichisalso  p applicabletopunitiveproceduresresultingfromfailuretocomplywithadministrativeprovisions ` oftheState.Itisneverthelessseriouslycontradictoryinstatingthatthedutyimposedonthevehicle P ownerwhoiscompelledtorevealoridentifythenameofthedriverwhenitishimselfdoesnot @ constituteaviolationofthefundamentalrightnottoconfessguilt.Thedecisioncomprisesaseparate 0 opinionsignedbytwojudgesstatingthatwithoutdoubtthefundamentalrightnottotestifyagainst   oneselfisviolatedbyarticle72(3)ofthe_LSV_. ! Thecomplaint #! 3.1Counselmaintainsthattheauthorhasbeenthevictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3 % # (g),oftheCovenantinthathehasbeenobligedtoconfessguilttotheextentthattherequestfor p&!$ identificationwasaddressedtotheownerofthevehicle,whowasinfactthedriverresponsiblefor `'"% theoffence.Inthiscaseheisbeingobligedtomakeaselfaccusatorystatement,whichcontravenes P(#& therightprotectedintheCovenant. @)$' 3.2Hefurthermaintainsthatoneofthefundamentalelementsofthepresumptionofinnocence  +p&) (article14,paragraph2),namelythattheburdenofproofrestsontheprosecutionandnotthe ,`'* defence,hasbeenviolatedsincetheactionrequiredfromtheauthorbytheauthoritiesisequivalent -P(+ toproofofhisinnocence.Itisinfactincumbentontheauthoritiesthemselvestoidentifythedriver -@), presumedtoberesponsiblefortheoffence.1  3.3Thiscomplainthasnotbeensubmittedtoanyotherinternationalsettlementprocedure.  Stateparty'sinformationandobservations,andcounsel'scomments p 4.1Initsstatementdated19January1998ontheadmissibilityofthecase,theStatepartyrequested P  thatitshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleonthebasisofarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptional @  Protocolsince,initsview,thepresentcommunicationisidenticaltoacommunicationsubmittedby 0  thesamecounseltotheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.TheStatepartyneverthelessinformsthe  p  Committeethatitwillreplyastothemeritsofthequestionwithinthetimelimitset. `  4.2Initssubmission,dated20May1998,concerningthemeritsofthecase,theStatepartyreiterates @  itsrequestthatthecomplaintshouldbedeclaredinadmissible.Thefactsarenotcontestedbythe 0  Statepartybutitconsidersthattherehasnotbeenaviolationofanyoftherightsprotectedinthe   Covenant,sincethepotentialdangerconstitutedbyamotorvehiclerequiresthatroadtrafficshould  berigorouslyprotected.  4.3ItfurtherdrawsattentiontotheobligationunderSpanishlawwherebytheoffenceshouldbe  "personalized".Theoffencecannotautomaticallybeattributedtotheownerofthevehicle,andso  thelawrequiresthattheperpetratoroftheoffenceshouldbepersonallyidentified.Hemayormay p notbetheownerand,iftheownerofthevehicleisajuridicalentity,theywillcertainlynotbethe ` same.Consequently,accordingtotheStateparty'scounsel,article72(3)ofthe_LSV_Ԁstipulatesthat P thecompetentauthorityshalltransmittotheownerofthevehicleacommunicationconcerningthe @ complaint(forspeeding)andrequesthimtoinformtheDepartmentofTrafficofthenameand 0 addressofthedriver,withawarningthat,ifhefailstodoso,hewill,asowner,beregardedas  p havingfailedtofulfilthedutyofcooperation.Althoughtheownerofthecarrepliedthathedidnot ` knowwhohadbeendrivingitonthedayinquestion,hegavealistof17possibledrivers.The P administrativeauthoritiestooktheviewthatthisreplydidnotamounttoproperfulfilmentofthe @ dutyofcooperationwiththeauthoritiesand,aftertherelevantadministrativeformalities,proceeded 0 tofineMr._Snchez_Ԁ50,000pesetasforhavingcommittedaseriousmisdemeanour.TheStateparty   maintainsthatthepenaltywasimposedontheperpetratorforhisfailuretoperformthelegalduty ! imposedbythe_LSV_Ԁontheownerofavehicletoidentifythedriverresponsiblefortheoffence,and "  notasaconsequenceofthefineforspeeding,whichwasdropped.Inaddition,theStateparty #! considersthattheauthorwaspunishedafterproceedingscomprisingtheauthor'spleadingsandall $" proceduralsafeguards,proceedingswhichwerethesubjectofajudicialreview,wereadversarial, % # andwereconfirmedbytheConstitutionalTribunal. p&!$ 4.4Asregardsthepossibleviolationofarticle14,paragraph2,oftheCovenant(presumptionof P(#& innocence),theStateparty'scounselconsidersthat,sincetheConstitutionalTribunalrejectedthe @)$' argumentsonthegroundsthattheywerenotsubstantiated,thisconstitutesnonexhaustionof 0*%( domesticremediesandthecomplaintshouldbedeclaredinadmissible.Inthisconnection,theState  +p&) party'scounselsaysthattheauthorappearstoconfusethepresumptionofinnocenceinrespectof ,`'* thepunitiveprocessforthetrafficoffence(thesaidprocesshavingbeendropped)withthepunitive -P(+ processforfailuretocooperatewiththeauthorities. -@), Ї4.5Astotheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(g),oftheCovenant,theauthorconsiders  thattheprovisioninquestionobligeshimtotestifyagainsthimselforconfessguiltcontrarytothe  provisionsoftheCovenant.TheStateparty'scounselaffirmsthat,inaccordancewiththedecision  of21December1995,theConstitutionalTribunalhasruledthat"theprinciplesunderlyingthepenal  legislationareapplicable,withcertainnuances,toadministrativelawrelatingtopenalties".The p Tribunalalsodrawsattentionto"thecautionwhichshouldbeexercisedwhentheessential `  guaranteesrelatingtoprocedureanddirectlyrelatedtocriminalproceedingsaretransferredtothe P  administrativesphereinrespectofpenalties,sincethisoperationcannotbeeffectedautomatically, @  giventhedifferencesexistingbetweenthetwotypesofprocedures". 0  4.6Astothecaseunderconsideration,thepenaltyimposedontheauthorisnottheconsequenceof `  anyinfringementoftrafficregulations,butistheconsequenceoftheoffencecommittedbythe P  ownerofthevehiclevisvisthedutytocooperaterequiredbylawofanyvehicleowner.This @  obligationderivesfromthepotentialriskwhichtheuseofamotorvehiclemayentailforthelives, 0  healthandsafetyofindividuals.Tothisshouldbeadded,accordingtotheStateparty'scounsel,the   requirementthatthepenaltyshouldbepersonalized,whichimposesontheauthoritiestheobligation  toassignresponsibilityfortheinfringementofatrafficregulationtotheperpetratorofthe  infringement,i.e.thedriverofthevehicleataparticularmomentandnottheownerofthevehicle.  4.7AccordingtotheStateparty'scounsel,thedutytocooperate,setforthinarticle72(3)ofthe  _LSV_,innowayobligesthevehicleownertomakeastatementontheallegedtrafficviolation p admittinghisguiltorassumingresponsibilities.InthisconnectionheaddsthattheConstitutional ` Tribunalhasmadeitclearthat,althoughtheprovisionreads"identifythedriverresponsibleforthe P offence",thiswordingis"technicallyinfelicitous"sincethepurposeofthedutyofcooperationis @ toidentifynotthepersonresponsible,butonlythepersonwhowasdrivingthevehicle.Itis, 0 therefore,tothispersonthattheauthoritieshavetoaddressthemselvesthroughthepunitive  p procedureofarticle73.Afterconcludingtheappropriateprocedurewithalltheconstitutionaland ` legalsafeguards,itisincumbentontheauthoritiestoestablishwhetherornotthepersonidentified P wasresponsiblefortheoffence. @ 5.1Theauthor'scounselrejectstheclaimofinadmissibilityenteredbytheStateparty:althoughthe   complaintsubmittedtotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightsrelatestothesamematter,in ! thatcomplainttheoffence,thevictimand,ofcourse,theSpanishjudicialdecisions,includingthe "  relevantapplicationfor_amparo_,werenotthesame. #! 5.2WithregardtotheStateparty'ssubmissionsonsubstance,theauthor'scounselreiterateshis % # allegationsofviolationsofarticle14,paragraphs2and3(g),oftheCovenant.Hethusreiteratesthat p&!$ article73(2)ofthe_LSV_Ԁraisesnoproblemwhenthedriverofthevehicleisnottheowner,butthat `'"% thesituationisdifferentifheistheownersinceheiscompelled,asowner,totestifyagainsthimself P(#& inhavingtoidentifythedriverashimself.TheStateparty'sdefenceisbasedondenyingtheliteral @)$' senseoftheprovisionviolatingtheCovenant,claimingthatitsayssomethingthatitdoesnotsay. 0*%( 5.3Astotheargumentconcerningtheneedtoprotectsocietyagainstthedangerofmotorvehicles, ,`'* theauthor'scounselexplainsthattheStatepartycouldfulfiltheobligationtopersonalizetheoffence -P(+ byidentifyingthedriveratthetimeoftheoffence,throughtheuseoftwopolicevehicles,onewith -@), theradarandthesecondstoppingthevehicle,asisthecurrentpracticeoftheSpanishpolice.This  practice,which,accordingtocounsel,isnowgeneral,reinforcesthesubmissionconcerningthe  incompatibilityoftheprovisioncontainedinarticle72(3)ofthe_LSV_Ԁwiththerightnottoconfess  guilt,asprotectedbytheCovenant.  5.4Onthequestionoftheviolationofthepresumptionofinnocencecoveredbyarticle14,paragraph `  2,oftheCovenant,counselmaintainsthattherehasbeenaviolationofthisrightbytheStateparty P  sinceithasinvertedtheburdenofproofincumbentontheprosecutor(thetrafficauthorities,inthis @  case);theauthoritieshaveinfactrequiredtheownertoprovewhowasdrivingthevehicle.Astothe 0  Stateparty'sargumentthattheauthorcannotinvokethisrightsincehedidnotdosobeforethe  p  nationalcourts,counseldismissestheargumentsincethequestionwasraisedbeforethe `  ConstitutionalTribunal,whichrejectedit,accordingtocounsel,becauseoftheexcessiveformalism P  oftheTribunal,whichwasunwillingtogointothemeritsofthecase. @  Admissibilityconsiderationsandexaminationofthemerits   6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee  mustdecide,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,whetherornotitisadmissible  undertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  6.2Withregardtoarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,theCommitteecannotaccept p theStateparty'scontentionthat"thesamematter"hasalreadybeensubmittedtotheEuropeanCourt ` ofHumanRightsbecauseanotherpersonbroughthisparticularcasebeforethatbodyinconnection P withanapparentlyidenticalclaim.Thewords"thesamematter",withinthemeaningofarticle5, @ paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,mustbeunderstoodasreferringtooneandthesameclaim 0 concerningthesameindividual,assubmittedbythatindividual,orbysomeotherpersonempowered  p toactonhisbehalf,totheotherinternationalbody.SincetheStatepartyhasitselfacknowledged ` thattheauthorofthepresentcommunicationhasnotsubmittedhisspecificcasetotheEuropean P CourtofHumanRights,theHumanRightsCommitteeconsidersthatitisnotprecludedfrom @ consideringthecommunicationunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.2 0 6.3TheCommitteeobservesthat,forthepurposesoftheOptionalProtocol,allavailabledomestic ! remedieshavebeenexhaustedwiththerejectionofthe_amparo_applicationbytheConstitutional "  Tribunal.Inthisregard,theCommitteehastakennoteofthefactthattheStatepartychallengesthe #! admissibilityoftheclaimofaviolationofthepresumptionofinnocence(article14,paragraph2) $" onthegroundoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteealsotakesnoteofthewritten % # informationbeforeitstatingthattheallegedviolationofthepresumptionofinnocencewasbrought p&!$ totheattentionoftheConstitutionalTribunalandthatthelatterrejectedtheclaim.TheCommittee `'"% considersthat,inaccordancewitharticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,thereis P(#& nothinginthecircumstancesofthecasetopreventitfromconsideringthecommunication. @)$' 6.4Withregardtotheclaimthattheauthor'srightstothepresumptionofinnocenceandtheright  +p&) nottotestifyagainsthimselfasprotectedbyarticle14,paragraphs2and3(g)oftheCovenantwere ,`'* violatedbytheSpanishState,sincehehadtoidentifytheownerofthevehiclereportedfor -P(+ committingatrafficoffence,theCommitteeconsidersthatthedocumentationinitspossession -@), showsthattheauthorwaspunishedfornoncooperationwiththeauthoritiesandnotforthetraffic  offence.TheHumanRightsCommitteeconsidersthatapenaltyforfailuretocooperatewiththe  authoritiesinthiswayfallsoutsidethescopeofapplicationoftheabovementionedparagraphsof  theCovenant.Accordingly,thecommunicationisheldtobeinadmissibleunderarticle1ofthe  OptionalProtocol. p 7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: P  (a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol; 0  (b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtotheauthor'scounsel. `  _________________ @   * ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent   communication:Mr._Abdelfattah_ԀAmor,Mr._Prafullachandra_ԀN._Bhagwati_,Ms.Christine_Chanet_,  Lord_Colville_,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.Louis_Henkin_,Mr._Eckart_ԀKlein,Mr.David_Kretzmer_,Ms.  CeciliaMedina_Quiroga_,Mr.Fausto_Pocar_,Mr.Martin_Scheinin_,Mr._Hip;lito_Ԁ_Solari_Ԁ_Yrigoyen_,  Roman_Wieruszewski_,andMr.Maxwell_Yalden_.  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently p tobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttothe ` GeneralAssembly.] P Notes:  p 1/InthisrespecthecitesadecisionoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,_Oztrk_Ԁv.Germany P case,adoptedon21February1984,seriesA,No.73,inwhichitisestablishedthattheguarantees @ containedinarticle6oftheEuropeanConventionandfordefendantsarefullyapplicabletopunitive 0 administrativeprocedureswhentheStateitselfhasrecognizedthissetofregulationsforanypunitive   procedure,eventhoughacustodialpenaltyisnotautomaticallyapplicable. ! 2/SeecommunicationNo.R.18/75(_Faneli_Ԁv.Italy).