WPCN3 ɒJu]!2H\o#HNs{V~_ZӲ.5v+i_:;1S)yAMHsERƱ$=~k ؀3Qez c\XI'W3=d" 1S2>V9񵈴rĿDI4D&]Ki檆r=PBb2l%oh}㪈#%ij*D_XeM|\OnUyZ 2!l[;_+AW2 @n 9:7Ezswy JqW0EȖm'9h6q1Ft4X>-كVӭ*D mr qr2. e.  D_ ~<%LCՃO+BF%OYJQL!@5L W; PIM +?>bdVWO[acu֜gHo8V9aLи{O#RUN %i 0:o 0" 0 0 0| 0g 0O 04 0 0 0 0 0 0n 0G 0 0 0 0 0W 08 0 0 0 0 0p 0? 0 00 0<! 0@! 0>! 0v<" 0`" 0`# 0`r# 0`# 0`2$ 08$ 0$ 02% 0% 0:& 0Y' 0_]' 0 ' 0j( 00* B*+ D/+ D+ , 08, D/- 0- 06. 0. 0:/ 0^10 0<0U60U>1 1U?1 7 1U*1 0c1N-2U,/2 1u[2 722^ 3w343&353 m73\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnV,,,,V0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,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  ?C%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?C%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(359=AEIMQ1 A %2A`Arial(;3$2#  0  .3  0  \ Y`Symbol3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Gi)g/ f/ƣ3|xU !UKUS.,  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _De_Ԁ_Clippele_Ԁv.Belgium  CommunicationNo1082/2002* X 28March2003 , | _CCPR_/C/77/D/1082/2002  P ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:Mr._Olivier_Ԁde_Clippele_Ԁ(representedbycounselMr.ArnaudJansen) z  Allegedvictim:Theauthor H Stateparty:Belgium f Dateofcommunication:8March2002(initialsubmission) 4   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil  andPoliticalRights,  Meetingon:28March2003, X Adoptsthefollowing: *z   Decisiononadmissibility   5 G1.Theauthorofthecommunicationis_Olivier_Ԁde_Clippele_,aBelgiancitizenresidinginBrussels, #" Belgium.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyBelgiumofarticle25(b)oftheInternational $# CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthorisrepresentedbycounsel.(TheCovenantand s% $ itsOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforBelgiumon17August1984.) \&!%   Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor .(~#'   )h$( 2.1TheBelgianActof11April1994(asamendedbytheActof18December1998andtheAct *Q%) of12August2000)institutedanautomatedvotingsystemincertainelectoraldistricts,cantonsand *:&* communes. +#'+ 2.2Theauthor,asavoterandcandidateinthecommunalelectionsinthecommuneofIxelles, -(- _broughtsuitbeforethecompetentBelgiancourtswithaclaimthattheActonautomatedvotingdid  notrespecttherightssetoutinarticle25(b)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical  Rights.  2.3On17November2000,undertheBelgiancommunalelectionslaw,theauthorbroughtan T actionchallengingtheprocedureforthepreparation,holdingandcountingofautomatedvotesinthe =  communalelectionof8October2000inIxelles,withaviewtohavingtheelectioncancelledbythe & v JudicialCounciloftheBrusselscapitalregion.  _ 2.4On14December2000theJudicialCouncilrejectedtheauthor'scomplaint.  1  2.5On26December2000theauthorlodgedanappealwiththeCouncilofState.   2.6On4April2001theCouncilofStaterejectedtheauthor'sappeal.    Thecomplaint W    A 3.1TheauthorischallengingtheActonautomatedvotingonthefollowinggrounds: *z 0  Lackofindependentmonitoringofelectoralproceduressuchthatthedistributionofseats L betweenthelistsmightbeinfluenced;therearefourelementstothis:5(#(#  A(83G""  X<( ` hp x X<   ` XFX)XXX2 3      #XXXFX)##Thesystemlackstransparency.Thesoftwareforrecordingand  countingvoteshasnotbeenmadepublic,soneitherthemainbureau  northepollingstationscaneffectivelymonitorvotingprocedures;B݌  Ќ `  XX   ""  X<( ` hp x X<   ` XFX)XXX 2 3      #XXXFX)#Votershavenocertaintythattheirvoteandtheelectronicrecordof  theirvoteonthemagneticcardcorrespond,asthesoftware u constitutesanintermediarywhichtheycannotmonitorinanyway; ݌ ^ Ќ `  XX   ""  X<( ` hp x X<   ` XFX)XXX2 3      #XXXFX)7#ThecountingofvotesisorganizedandoverseenbytheMinistryof G theInterior.V݌ = Ќ `  XX   ""  X<( ` hp x X<   ` XFX)XXX2 3      #XXXFX)I#ThemonitoringperformedbyaCollegeofExpertsdoesnot & v compensateforthislackofindependenceofthebodycountingthe !l votes,asthefunctioning,authorityandorganizationoftheCollege "U  aredeficientinnumerousways(theCollegeisunabletomonitoreach ">! pollingstationeffectively,andispowerlessagainstfraud);h݌ #'" Ќ `  XX   ""  X<( ` hp x X<   ` XFX)XXX2 3      #XXXFX){#Candidatesandwitnessesareunabletoverifythecountingofvotes $ # ortheresultsastheyhavenoaccesstothesoftwareandthereforecan %!$ onlywatchasaprinterproducestheresultsofhiddenelectronic &!% processing;݌ '"& Ќ `  XX   0  Restrictionoftherighttovote,asthevotermustselectalistwithoutbeingabletoviewall Z)$( thecandidatesoneachlistatthesametime;C*%)(#(# 0  Unreliabilityanderrorsrelatingtotheautomatedvotethatcametolightintheelections ,e'+ of8October2000,whentherewerediscrepanciesatseveralpollingStationsbetweenthe ,N(, numberofcardsrecordedintheballotboxesandthenumberofvoterswhoactuallyvoted, -7)- andbetweenthenumberofmagneticcardsrecordedandthenumbercancelled.(#(# 3.2TheauthorclaimsthattheActonautomatedvotingthatwasappliedinthecommunalelections  of8October2000contravenesarticle25(b)oftheCovenant. k   3.3Theauthorstatesthatalldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted,andindicatesthatthematter =  hasnotbeensubmittedunderanyotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement. & v  Stateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility  H    2    4.1Initsobservationsof29July2002,theStatepartychallengestheadmissibilityofthe    communication.   4.2Firstly,referringtotheCommittee'sjurisprudence,1/theStatepartyassertsthattheauthorhas   notdemonstratedthatheisavictim.Theauthorvoicesgeneralandabstractcriticismofthe o  automatedvotingsystemwithoutspecificallydemonstratingthatsuchasystemcouldhaveaffected X  himdirectlyorcausedhimpersonalharm,eitherasacandidateforthecommunalelectionsinIxelles A orasavoterinthesamecommune.TheStatepartyaffirmsthatasacandidatetheauthorsuffered *z noharm,sincehewaselected.Furthermore,accordingtotheStateparty,theauthormakesno c specificallegationthatthesupposedirregularitiesthathehascomplainedoffalsifiedtheresultsof L theIxellescommunalelectionstoeitherhisdetrimentorthatofthecandidateforwhomhevoted. 5 4.3Secondly,theStatepartymaintainsthattheauthorhasnotexhausteddomesticremediesin  respectofhiscomplaintallegingdiscrepanciesatseveralpollingstationsbetweenthenumberof  cardsrecordedintheballotboxesandthenumberofvoterswhoactuallyvoted,andbetweenthe  numberofmagneticcardsrecordedandthenumbercancelled.AccordingtotheStateparty,the r JudicialCounciloftheBrusselscapitalregion,astheadministrativecourtoffirstinstancewith [ competenceforcommunalelectiondisputes,decidedinajudgementof14December2000thatthese D allegationsconstitutednewpleas,submittedaftertheexpirationofthe40daytimelimitforthe -} filingofcomplaintswiththeCouncil(Actoncommunalelections,art.74(1)).Infactthesepleas f didnotappearatallintheoriginalcomplaintandwereadvancedonlylater,inthesubmissionsfiled O on8and11December2000.TheCouncil,consideringthatthesewerenewpleasandthattheycould  8 notbeconsideredmerelyasdevelopmentsofthepleasintheinitialcomplaint,foundthem !!  inadmissible.Furthermore,accordingtotheStateparty,theCouncilofState,actingasanappellate " ! body,attheconclusionofadetailedstatementofreasonsinajudgementdated4April2001,fully #" concurredinthatviewandconcludedthat"thepleasubmittedoutoftimetotheJudicialCouncil $# wasinadmissibleandremainssoonappealbeforetheCouncilofState". u% $ 4.4BasingitselfontheCommittee'sjurisprudence,2/theStatepartyconsidersthattheauthorhas G'"& notexhausteddomesticremediesinasmuchashefailedtoexhaustsuchremediesowingtohisown 0(#' negligence,byfailingtocomplywiththetimelimitforthefilingofappealsstipulatedbydomestic )i$( law. *R%) 4.5Thirdly,theStatepartymaintainsthattheauthorhasnotsufficientlysubstantiatedhis +$'+ allegations.ReferringtotheCommittee'sjurisprudence,3/theStatepartyconsidersthattheauthor , (, merelymakesassertionswithoutproducingconcreteevidencejustifyingadmissibility. -(- Ї4.6Lastly,theStatepartypointsoutthattheauthor'scomplaintshavebeencarefullyconsideredby  thenationalcourts,andthatinaccordancewiththeCommittee'sjurisprudence4/itisfortheappeal  courtsinStatesparties,nottheCommittee,toreviewthefindingsoffactsinagivencaseunlessit  canbeprovedthatthecourts'decisionswereclearlyarbitrary. k 4.7TheStatepartypointsoutthattheCouncilofStateobservesfirstofallthatarticle25(b)ofthe =  Covenantneitherprescribesnorprohibitsanyspecificvotingsystem. & v 4.8TheCouncilofStaterefutesthecomplaintsofalackoftransparencyintheautomatedvoting  H system,inparticularasthe"sourcecode"wasdivulged,albeitwithoutthesecurityalgorithms.There  1  isnoindicationthatthetransparencyprovidedbydivulgingthe"sourcecode"wasinsufficient.    4.9Concerningtheabilityofvoterstoverifytheirvotes,theCouncilofStatenotes,andtheauthor   acknowledges,thatvotersareabletoverifytheirvotesafterhavingexpressedtheirchoice,andthat   themonitoringperformedbytheCollegeofExpertshasshownthattherewasnodiscrepancy n  betweenthevotesasdisplayedandtheinformationrecordedonthemagneticcard. W  4.10AsfortheindependenceoftheCollegeofExperts,theCouncilofStatenotesthattheauthor )y criticizestheCollegeforbeingelectedbylegislativeassemblies.TheCouncilofStateobserves b firstlythatsuchreasoning,iffollowed,wouldnecessarilycastdoubtontheindependenceand K impartialityofalljudgesinBelgium,whoareappointedbytheKingonthenominationofthe 4 competentminister,andthusonthecountry'sestablishedauthorities.TheCouncilofStatethennotes  thatnospecificevidencedemonstratingthelackofindependenceoftheCollegehasbeenput  forward.Infact,theCouncilofStatenotesthatcriticismbytheCollege,initsreportontheelections  of13June1999,ledtoamendmentoftheActof11April1994.Initsreportontheelectionsof8  October2000theCollegeliststhevariousimprovementsmadetotheautomatedvotingsystem,both q inrespectofproceduresandequipment.Amongtheseimprovementswasthepossibilityforvoters Z themselvestoverifytheirvotes. C 4.11TheCouncilofStatethendrawsattentiontothefactthatpriortotheelectionsof8October e 2000theCollegeofExpertscarriedouttestsinvolvingcastingvotes,viewingthemandcomparing N theresultswiththevotescast,andthatitnotedthatthevotingmachinesaccuratelyrecordedthe  7 votesinthecomputer'smemory.TheCouncilofStatealsopointsoutthatverificationexerciseswere !   conductedbothonelectiondayandafterwards,duringwhichitwasconfirmedthat:(1)thesoftware " ! commandswereidenticaltothosecreatedduringthebenchmarkcompilation;(2)themagneticcard #" readersdidnotalterthecontentofthecardsintheballotbox;and(3)itispossibletocarryoutan $# independentrecountbyviewingallthecardsinacommune'sballotboxonebyone,andcounting t% $ thevotesmanually.TheCouncilofStatealsoemphasizesthatadoubleappealcanbelodged,with ]&!% theProvincialExecutiveCouncilortheJudicialCouncilinfirstinstance,andsubsequentlywiththe F'"& CouncilofStateonappeal,andthatthesebodiescanorderinvestigations.Thesebodieshavefull /(#' competence,andtheirinterventionthusprovidesanadditionalguarantee. )h$( 4.12Withregardtothecomplaintofrestrictionoftherighttovote,theCouncilofStatenotes,on *:&* theonehand,thatarticle15oftheActof11April1994providesthatalllistsofcandidatesmustbe +#'+ postedateachpollingstationandineachvotingbooth,and,ontheotherhand,thatarticle7 , (, stipulatesthatthenumberandpartyaffiliationofallcandidatelistsmustbedisplayedonthescreen, -(- withaninvitationtoconfirmthevotecastandtheoption,aslongasthevotehasnotbeenconfirmed,  ofstartingover.Therighttovoteisthusnothinderedinanywaybytheautomatedvotingsystem.  4.13Inrespectofthecomplaintconcerningunreliabilityanderrorsassociatedwithautomated k voting,theCouncilofStaterejectsthatpleaasthecasehasnotbeenproperlybroughtbeforeacourt T offirstinstance. =   Author'scommentsontheStateparty'sobservationsconcerningadmissibility   _ 5.1Inhisletterof26September2002,theauthorconteststheStateparty'sarguments.  4  5.2Firstly,hemaintainsthathewaspersonallyanddirectlyavictimofthefailuretorespectarticle   25(d)oftheCovenant,whichconfersuponhimindividualpoliticalrights,andrequeststhe   CommitteetoexaminetheviolationofhisrightsstemmingfromtheapplicationoftheActof11   April1994onautomatedvotinginthecommunalelectionsof8October2000.Intheauthor's q  opinion,theguaranteesofsubstanceandformcorrespondingtotheelectoralrightscitizensare Z  ensuredundertheCovenantarenotfulfilledbytheautomatedvotingsystem,anditwouldthusbe C unreasonabletodemandconcreteevidenceofirregularities. ,| 5.3Secondly,inrespectoftheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthoracknowledgesthatthe N complaintsofdiscrepanciesatcertainpollingstationsbetweenthenumberofcardsrecordedinthe 7 ballotboxesandthenumberofvoterswhoactuallyvoted,andbetweenthenumberofmagnetic   cardsrecordedandthenumbercancelled,werefoundinadmissibleonproceduralgrounds,asthey   wereoutoftime.However,accordingtotheauthor,thishasnobearingontheadmissibilityofhis  communicationconcerningtheviolationofarticle25(b)oftheCovenantbytheActonautomated  votingappliedinthecommunalelectionsof8October2000. t 5.4Thirdly,theauthorcontendsthathisallegationsaredulysubstantiatedbyrigorous,seriousand F detailedanalysis.Theauthormaintainsthathiscommunicationdoesnotrelatetoactualfactsor / evidence,namelytheholdingoftheelections,theexistenceoftheActof11April1994on h automatedvotingandthewayinwhichitwasapplied,but,rather,tothecompatibilitywitharticle  Q 25(b)oftheCovenantoftheActinitspresentformandasithasbeenapplied.Theauthorstatesthat  : heisnotconvincedbythejudgementissuedbytheCouncilofStateon4April2001,inparticular !#  forthefollowingreasons:(1)theCouncilofStatedidnotrespondtothecriticismthatitwas " ! materiallyimpossiblefortheCollegeofExpertstomonitorallthepollingstations;(2)theCouncil #" ofStatereferredtothefindingsoftheCollegeofExpertsinrespectoftheproblemofverification $# byvotersoftheaccuracyoftheirvotes,butfailedtorespondtotheabovecriticism;(3)theauthor w% $ maintainsthecomplaintconcerningthelackofguaranteesofindependenceoftheCollegeof `&!% Experts;and(4)theCouncilofStatedidnotaddressthequestionofthemonitoringofthevotecount I'"& bycandidatesandtheirwitnesses. 2(#'  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommitteeconcerningadmissibility *T%)   *>&* 6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimcontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee +''+ must,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissible ,(, undertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. -(- Ї6.2TheCommitteehasascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a)oftheOptional  Protocol,thatthesamematterisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternational  investigationorsettlement.  6.3Inrespectoftheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theCommitteenotestheargumentsofthe T Statepartytotheeffectthattheallegationsofdiscrepanciesatseveralpollingstationsbetweenthe =  numberofcardsrecordedintheballotboxesandthenumberofvoterswhoactuallyvoted,and & v betweenthenumberofmagneticcardsrecordedandthenumbercancelled,areinadmissible,asthese  _ complaintswerenotraisedwiththecompetentnationalcourtsintheperiodsetbylaw.The  H Committeealsonotesthattheauthoracknowledgesthesereasonsforinadmissibility.The  1  Committeethereforeconsidersthatthispartofthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,    paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.   6.4Inrespectofthecomplaintsconcerningtheabsenceofindependentmonitoringofelectoral   proceduresandrestrictionoftherighttovoteresultingfromtheActonautomatedvoting,the n  Committeeconsidersthatevenassumingthattheauthorcouldclaimthestatusofavictimofan W  allegedviolationoftheCovenant,hehasnotprovidedanyevidencetosubstantiatehiscomplaint. @ TheCommitteethereforeconsidersthatthispartofthecomplaintisinadmissibleunderarticle2of )y theOptionalProtocol. b 7.TheCommitteethereforedecides: 4 (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),andarticle2ofthe  OptionalProtocol;  (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtotheauthor. q [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theFrenchtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently ,| tobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttothe e GeneralAssembly.] N *ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent !   communication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.AlfredoCastilleroHoyos,Ms.ChristineChanet,Mr.Franco " ! Depasquale,Mr.MauriceGllAhanhanzo,Mr.WalterKlin,Mr.AhmedTawfikKhalil,Mr. #" RajsoomerLallah,Mr.RafaelRivasPosada,Mr.NigelRodley,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Ivan $# Shearer,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Ms.RuthWedgwoodandMr.RomanWieruszewski. t% $   Notes /(#'  1/CommunicationsNos.35/1978(ShirinAumeeruddyCziffraand19otherMauritianwomenv. *R%) Mauritius);and831/1998(MichaelMeiersv.France). *;&* 2/CommunicationsNos.925/2000(WanKuokKoiv.Portugal);26/1978(N.S.v.Canada). , (,  -(- 3/CommunicationNo.779/1997(rel,AnniandNkkljrvi,Jouniv.Finland).  4/CommunicationsNos.866/1999(MarinaandAlTorregrosaLafuentev.Spain)and947/2000  (BarryHartv.Australia). k k