ÿWPCƒ §N;lç;ébÌÏÔTþúÍ8ªª@mM—¤äÁì¦Ôé.•ïaÄÑÍJzeæÆƒD‡hûçð˩pzM†iéŒù@ö_ðè½”ùTûçË2PŽ­£us:-Å î%üÓF|ؽV^¦eZç®ç|îs‹'»YüˆÂòyPyê£'yý®vŸ„0=¾öÚŽÝ·³Ÿï Ð%©¡~»}„‰¿·[¯,QÎNÕ¨fyFRá¥,µåO7}Éyâ*Oo-êø1R7ŸjW>ÝGÐ9Œ@JÚŽgŸ Éì:òÝpsDL´ûpúEÕ_32hI#9±?ß®ŸøE­ ‘Ø·~ט:ÙŸ ‰ÔAøÞVr.©H ”p3bQôôâÒ“YÏ—/~Ò̰¢p1[ÿ°™3Q(ì;§¼GÉ »ýy,*ò`ØîwŒ/ïaÈÎzT _±MÚY‡yFloyipEsÊá8S7DåÔu…Ò±jåÒmþ3`úZÇÔX±©†$-à‹­%RÙePŸénâçN©üZŠ,m Ÿ(‘<䣷M‡û~^{jض ã·› °4Ä¿èæ?Š!òï"*¥¸Œ`å è'âÕz~2¨âþO w³¦¥Ã¿¥LêÊ›sU>z̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 0P–Ææ 0ᬠ0( D+µ AMà - 0Æ= #Á UNÄ %M(ND^ FwR4Vj mlô\  `‹&Times New Roman' R. D. Stalla Costa v. Uruguay, Communication No. 198/1985 (9 July 1987), U.N. Doc. Supp. N47), U.N. Doc. Supp. N"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹24Q$££Ý ƒõÇ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xy¯XXXÔÔ€Xy¯XXXy¯ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(žõÇ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xw'XXXÔÔ€Xw'XXXw'ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX ‰û* Äpì*´ëÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒõÇ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xy¯XXXÔÔ€Xy¯XXXy¯ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔStallaÔ_Ô€Costa€v.€UruguayóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€198/1985Ð H˜ ÐÌ9€July€1987Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:€óóR.€D.€Ô_ÔStallaÔ_Ô€Costa€Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:€óóthe€author€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:€óóUruguay€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó11€December€1985€(date€of€initial€letter)€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:€óó8€April€1987€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ Zª ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights:€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€9€July€1987;€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€198/1985€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€R.€D.€Ô_ÔStallaÔ_Ô€Costa€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantÐ ¾ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights;€Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned;€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð "$r# ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5(4)€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óóóÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓDÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€11€December€1985€and€threeÐ †)Ö$) Ðsubsequent€letters)€is€Ruben€Ô_ÔStallaÔ_Ô€Costa,€a€Uruguayan€lawyer,€residing€in€Montevideo,€whoÐ l*¼%* Ðclaims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€of€articles€2,€25€(c)€and€26€of€the€International€CovenantÐ R+¢&+ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð2.1€The€author€states€that€he€has€submitted€job€applications€to€various€governmental€agenciesÐ ° Ðin€order€to€have€access€to€and€obtain€a€job€in€the€public€service€in€his€country.€He€hasÐ –æ Ðallegedly€been€told€that€only€former€public€employees€who€were€dismissed€as€a€result€of€theÐ |Ì Ðapplication€of€Institutional€Act€No.€7€of€June€1977€are€currently€admitted€to€the€publicÐ b² Ðservice.€He€refers€in€this€connection€to€article€25€of€Law€15,737€of€22€March€1985,€whichÐ H˜ Ðprovides€that€all€public€employees€who€were€dismissed€as€a€result€of€the€application€ofÐ . ~ ÐInstitutional€Act€No.€7€have€the€right€to€be€reinstated€in€their€respective€posts.€Ð  d ÐÌ2.2€The€author€claims€that€article€25€of€Law€15,737€gives€more€rights€to€former€publicÐ à 0 Ðemployees€than€to€other€individuals,€such€as€the€author€himself,€and€that€it€is€thereforeÐ Æ   Ðdiscriminatory€and€in€violation€of€articles€2,€25€(c)€and€26€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ ¬ ü  ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.3€The€author€claims€to€have€exhausted€all€internal€remedies.€He€submitted€an€action€forÐ ^®  ÐòòÔ_ÔamparoÔ_Ô€óóon€grounds€of€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights,€in€particular€his€right€not€to€beÐ D”  Ðdiscriminated€against,€before€the€Supreme€Court€of€Justice€in€June€1985.€The€Supreme€CourtÐ *z  Ðdismissed€the€case.€Ð ` ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€26€March€1986,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ Ü, Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€party,Ð Â Ðrequesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibility€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcommunication.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ4.€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€24€July€1986,€the€State€party€requested€that€theÐ Zª Ðcommunication€be€declared€inadmissible,€explaining,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€Act€No.€15,737€of€22Ð @ ÐMarch€1985,€which€the€author€claimed€was€discriminatory,€had€been€passed€with€theÐ &v Ðunanimous€support€of€all€Uruguayan€political€parties€as€an€instrument€of€nationalÐ  \ Ðreconstruction:€Ð òB ÐÌ"This€Act€...€seeks€to€restore€the€rights€of€those€citizens€who€were€wrongfully€treated€by€theÐ ¾ Ðòòde€facto€óóGovernment.€In€addition€to€proclaiming€a€broad„ranging€and€generous€amnesty,€itÐ ¤ô Ðprovides€under€article€25,€that€all€public€officials€dismissed€on€ideological,€political€or€trade„Ð Š Ú Ðunion€grounds€or€for€purely€arbitrary€reasons€shall€have€the€right€to€be€reinstated€in€theirÐ p!À  Ðjobs,€to€resume€their€career€in€the€public€service€and€to€receive€a€pension.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ"The€right€of€any€citizen€to€have€access,€on€an€equal€footing,€to€public€employment€cannotÐ "$r# Ðbe€deemed€to€be€impaired€by€virtue€of€this€Act,€the€purpose€of€which€is€to€provide€redress.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ"Lastly,€so€far€as€exhaustion€of€remedies€is€concerned,€there€is€an€irrefutable€presumptionÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€a€right€has€been€violated€or€claimed€beforehand.€This€is€not€the€case€here,€as€theÐ º' #' Ðcomplainant€does€not€have€any€such€right€but€only€the€legitimate€expectation,€common€toÐ  (ð#( Ðall€Uruguayan€citizens,€of€being€recruited€to€the€public€service."€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ5.€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€the€author€argues,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€"theÐ R+¢&+ Ðenactment€of€Act€No.€15,737€did€not€have€the€support€of€all€the€political€parties€...€It€is€alsoÐ 8,ˆ', Ðasserted€that€article€25€seeks€to€provide€redress€and€does€not€infringe€the€right€to€access€onÐ -n(- ÐÔ_Ôan€equal€footing€to€posts€in€the€public€service.€I€join€in€this€spirit€of€reconciliation,€like€allÐ ° Ðpeople€in€my€country,€but€redress€will€have€to€take€the€form€of€money.'€Ð –æ ÐÌ6.1€In€further€observations,€dated€10€February€1987,€the€State€party€elucidates€UruguayanÐ b² Ðlegislation€and€practice€regarding€access€to€public€service:€Ð H˜ ÐÌ"Mr.€Stalla€regards€himself€as€having€a€subjective€right€to€demand€that€a€given€course€ofÐ  d Ðaction€be€followed,€namely,€his€admission€to€the€public€service.€The€Government€of€UruguayÐ ú J Ðreiterates€that€Mr.€Stalla,€like€any€other€citizen€of€the€Republic,€may€legitimately€aspire€toÐ à 0 Ðenter€the€public€service,€but€by€no€means€has€a€subjective€right€to€do€so.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ"For€a€subjective€right€to€exist,€it€must€be€founded€on€an€objective€legal€norm.€Accordingly,Ð ’â  Ðany€subjective€right€presumes€the€existence€of€a€possession€òò[bien]€óóor€legal€asset€òò[valorÐ xÈ  Ðjuridico]€óóattached€to€the€subject€by€a€bond€of€ownership€established€in€objective€law,€so€thatÐ ^®  Ðthe€person€in€question€may€demand€that€right€or€asset€as€his€own.€In€the€case€in€question,€Mr.Ð D”  ÐStalla€has€no€such€subjective€right,€since€the€filling€of€public€posts€is€the€prerogative€of€theÐ *z  Ðexecutive€organs€of€the€State,€of€State€enterprises€or€of€municipal€authorities.€Any€inhabitantÐ ` Ðof€the€Republic€meeting€the€requirements€laid€down€in€the€legal€norms€(age€requirement,Ð öF Ðphysical€and€moral€suitability,€technical€qualifications€for€the€post€in€question)€may€beÐ Ü, Ðappointed€to€a€public€post€and€may€have€a€legitimate€aspiration€to€be€vested€with€the€statusÐ Â Ðof€public€servant,€should€the€competent€bodies€so€decide."€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ6.2€With€regard€to€article€8€of€the€Uruguayan€Constitution,€which€provides€that€'all€personsÐ tÄ Ðare€equal€before€the€law,€no€other€distinctions€being€recognized€among€them€save€those€ofÐ Zª Ðtalent€and€virtue",€the€State€party€comments:€Ð @ ÐÌ"This€provision€of€the€Constitution€embodies€the€principle€of€the€equality€of€all€personsÐ  \ Ðbefore€the€law.€The€Government€of€Uruguay€wishes€to€state€in€this€respect€that€to€uphold€Mr.Ð òB ÐStalla's€petition€would€unquestionably€violate€this€principle€by€according€him€preferenceÐ Ø( Ðover€other€university€graduates€who,€like€Mr.€Stalla,€have€a€legitimate€aspiration€to€secureÐ ¾ Ðsuch€posts,€without€any€distinction€being€made€between€them,€other€than€on€the€basis€ofÐ ¤ô Ðtalent€and€virtue."€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ6.3€With€regard€to€article€55€of€the€Uruguayan€Constitution,€which€provides€that€"the€lawÐ V"¦! Ðshall€regulate€the€impartial€and€equitable€distribution€of€labour",€the€State€party€comments:€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ'This€provision€is€one€of€the€'framework€rules',€under€which€legal€measures€will€be€enactedÐ %X $ Ðdeveloping€the€established€right€to€work€(art.€53)€and€combining€the€existence€of€this€rightÐ î%>!% Ðwith€good€administration.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ'It€will€not€have€escaped€the€Committee€that€it€is€obviously€impossible€for€the€GovernmentÐ  (ð#( Ðof€Uruguay,€or€of€any€other€State€with€a€similar€system,€to€absorb€all€university€graduatesÐ †)Ö$) Ðinto€the€public€service.'€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ6.4€The€State€party€further€emphasizes€the€necessity€of€"provision€for€redress€made€in€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðlegislation€enacted€by€the€first€elected€Parliament€after€more€than€12€years€of€militaryÐ -n(- Ðauthoritarianism,€legislation€which€has€made€it€possible€to€restore€the€rights€of€those€publicÐ ° Ðand€private€officials€who€were€removed€from€their€posts€as€a€result€of€ideologicalÐ –æ Ðpersecution'.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ7.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ H˜ ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ . ~ Ðwhether€the€communication€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ  d ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð ú J ÐÌ7.2€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€ascertained,€as€required€under€article€5,Ð Æ   Ðparagraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€that€the€same€matter€was€not€being€examinedÐ ¬ ü  Ðunder€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Regarding€theÐ ’â  Ðrequirement€of€prior€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€concluded,€based€onÐ xÈ  Ðthe€information€before€it,€that€there€were€no€further€domestic€remedies€which€the€authorÐ ^®  Ðcould€resort€to€in€the€particular€circumstances€of€his€case.€The€Committee€noted€in€thatÐ D”  Ðconnection€the€author's€statement€that€his€action€for€òòamparo€óóhad€been€dismissed€by€theÐ *z  ÐSupreme€Court€(see€para.€2.3€above),€as€well€as€the€State€party's€observation€to€the€effect€thatÐ ` Ðthere€could€be€no€remedy€in€the€case€as€there€had€been€no€breach€of€a€right€under€domesticÐ öF Ðlaw€(see€para.€4€above).€Ð Ü, ÐÌ7.3€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€submission€that€the€communication€should€have€beenÐ ¨ø Ðdeclared€inadmissible€on€the€ground€that€the€author€had€no€subjective€right€in€law€to€beÐ ŽÞ Ðappointed€to€a€public€post,€but€only€the€legitimate€aspiration€to€be€so€employed€(see€para..4Ð tÄ Ðand€the€State€party's€further€elaboration€in€para.€6.1€above),€the€Committee€observed€that€theÐ Zª Ðauthor€had€made€a€reasonable€effort€to€substantiate€his€claim€and€that€he€had€invokedÐ @ Ðspecific€provisions€of€the€Covenant€in€that€respect.€The€question€whether€the€author's€claimÐ &v Ðwas€well„founded€should,€therefore,€be€examined€on€the€merits.€Ð  \ ÐÌ7.4€The€Committee€noted€that€the€facts€of€the€case,€as€set€out€by€the€author€and€the€StateÐ Ø( Ðparty,€were€already€sufficiently€clear€to€permit€an€examination€on€the€merits.€However,€theÐ ¾ ÐCommittee€deemed€it€appropriate€at€that€juncture€to€limit€itself€to€the€procedural€requirementÐ ¤ô Ðof€deciding€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€It€noted€that,€if€the€State€party€shouldÐ Š Ú Ðwish€to€add€to€its€earlier€submissions€within€six€months€of€the€transmittal€to€it€of€the€decisionÐ p!À  Ðon€admissibility,€the€author€of€the€communication€would€be€given€an€opportunity€toÐ V"¦! Ðcomment€thereon.€If€no€further€explanations€or€statements€were€received€from€the€State€partyÐ <#Œ" Ðunder€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€Committee€would€then€proceedÐ "$r# Ðto€adopt€its€final€views€in€the€light€of€the€written€information€already€submitted€by€theÐ %X $ Ðparties.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ7.5€On€8€April€1987€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decided€that€the€communicationÐ º' #' Ðwas€admissible€and€requested€the€State€party,€if€it€did€not€intend€to€make€a€furtherÐ  (ð#( Ðsubmission€in€the€case€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€so€to€informÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€Committee,€to€permit€an€early€decision€on€the€merits.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ8.€By€note€dated€26€May€1987,€the€State€party€informed€the€Committee€that,€in€the€light€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðits€prior€submission,€it€would€not€make€a€further€submission€in€the€case.€Ð -n(- Ї9.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€merits€of€the€present€communicationÐ ° Ðin€the€light€of€all€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,Ð –æ Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€The€facts€of€the€case€are€not€in€dispute.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ10.€The€main€question€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€author€of€the€communication€isÐ H˜ Ða€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€25€(c)€of€the€Covenant€because,€as€he€alleges,€he€has€notÐ . ~ Ðbeen€permitted€to€have€access€to€public€service€on€general€terms€of€equality.€Taking€intoÐ  d Ðaccount€the€social€and€political€situation€in€Uruguay€during€the€years€of€military€rule,€inÐ ú J Ðparticular€the€dismissal€of€many€public€servants€pursuant€to€Institutional€Act€No.€7,€theÐ à 0 ÐCommittee€understands€the€enactment€of€Act€No.€15.737€of€22€March€1985€by€the€newÐ Æ   Ðdemocratic€Government€of€Uruguay€as€a€measure€of€redress.€Indeed,€the€CommitteeÐ ¬ ü  Ðobserves€that€Uruguayan€public€officials€dismissed€on€ideological,€political€or€trade„unionÐ ’â  Ðgrounds€were€victims€of€violations€of€article€25€of€the€Covenant€and€as€such€are€entitled€toÐ xÈ  Ðhave€an€effective€remedy€under€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant.€The€Act€shouldÐ ^®  Ðbe€looked€upon€as€such€a€remedy.€The€implementation€of€the€Act,€therefore,€cannot€beÐ D”  Ðregarded€as€incompatible€with€the€reference€to€'general€terms€of€equality'€in€article€25€(c)€ofÐ *z  Ðthe€Covenant.€Neither€can€the€implementation€of€the€Act€be€regarded€as€an€invidiousÐ ` Ðdistinction€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€or€as€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€terms€ofÐ öF Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ11.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ ¨ø ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ ŽÞ Ðfacts€as€submitted€do€not€sustain€the€author's€claim€that€he€has€been€denied€access€to€publicÐ tÄ Ðservice€in€violation€of€article€25€(c)€or€that€he€is€a€victim€of€an€invidious€distinction,€that€is,Ð Zª Ðof€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€articles€2€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€