ÿWPC5 Ç…ãôTD'?7·mP3Eƒ¨Â䟗w)ÆCRj¶0vØ”·(üC™zÞh%VîåÅN¬ß"IÓrØ­ š6ÁdŸ$µOÉüFv•ÔyI¶îaUHWKùýI²Ÿ×ƒ«DÃÔùÙ˜]$Õ5ˆVcAÚ±ò'…öÔ÷зաf܃á /s4÷ - žš5OB=u>[›Ì‘þùÑr¶N#WåuÈ`Ú«†“·ÁNG»9Jôý\bhF螸T8.ø^¬´\n-ö¹)l×Øj–hp×Qc–5™÷r¢o?û0J,¾™HÁÑMqG+æ‡ná—qôܽ¿I)9}¾e­=FiT]Ï­g÷¼õ¹s’t¹“2­0b^ŸÅ: ¶{‹Û7VükósÈHaà9¾Æ·ÈDÒP²4J]tê… óøšGl[F P·ëYzµRW3YKœéyв`MNÕØ‘9Pî €á×`m…W‚0)÷§"E‘)å|Å1S3Í,Jº'Ÿz 0¶Š,‰vÒ‰úÉ^r_bF°¡šg HÐk¶!yZá û%^Y}L65 #ÁšUN[ %© 0:¯^ éwõ4ù  m˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(@øÐ Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,ÔËè. sä.Ðö§3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌÔ_ÔòòPateraÔ_Ô€v.€Czech€RepublicóóÐ „Ô ÐÌCommunication€No.€946/2000Ð X¨ ÐÌ25€July€2002Ð , | ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/75/D/946/2000Ð  P ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ¾  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Mr.€Ô_ÔL.P.Ô_ÔÐ zÊ  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€Czech€Republic€Ð H˜ ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€17€May€1999€(initial€submission)óóÐ f ÐÌÌòòThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ Ï Ðand€Political€Rights,Ð ¸ ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€25€July€2002,Ð ŠÚ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€946/2000,€submitted€to€the€Human€RightsÐ \¬ ÐCommittee€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔL.P.Ô_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ E• ÐPolitical€Rights,Ð .~ ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ  P Ðcommunication,€and€the€State€party,Ð é 9 ÐÌòòAdopts€the€followingóó:Ð »" ! ÐÌÌÓ=Óò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óÐ v%Æ $ ÐÓoÓÓÓÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Ô_ÔL.P.Ô_Ô,€a€Czech€citizen.€He€claims€that€he€and€his€son€areÐ I'™"& Ðvictims€of€a€violation€by€the€Czech€Republic€(1)€of€articles€17,€paragraphs€1€and€2,€and€2,€paragraphÐ 2(‚#' Ð3,€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€(the€Covenant).€He€is€not€representedÐ )k$( Ðby€counsel.Ð *T%) ÐÌò òThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoró óÐ Ö+&'+ ÐÌ2.1€The€author,€a€businessman€and€leading€representative€of€the€non-governmental€organizationÐ ©-ù(- Ð"Justice€for€children"€and€one€of€the€founding€members€of€"Society€for€the€Family€Mediation",€hasÐ ° Ða€son,€who€was€born€in€1989.€Since€the€author€separated€from€his€wife€and€the€mother€of€his€son,Ð ™é ÐMs.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô,€in€March€1991,€their€son€has€been€under€the€exclusive€care€of€the€mother,€and€the€authorÐ ‚Ò Ðhas€been€denied€regular€contact€with€him.Ð k» ÐÌ2.2€In€a€preliminary€court€decision€from€the€Regional€Court€Prague€West€of€12€July€1993,€confirmedÐ =  Ðin€a€further€preliminary€court€decision€of€2€October€1995,€the€author€was€granted€the€right€to€see€hisÐ & v Ðson€every€second€weekend€from€Saturday€morning€until€Sunday€evening.€However,€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€didÐ  _ Ðnot€comply€with€the€decisions€and€has€refused€the€author€regular€access€ever€since.€Only€duringÐ ø H Ð1994€and€1995€was€the€author€allowed€to€see€his€son€on€an€irregular€basis,€but€then€under€theÐ á 1  Ðsurveillance€of€a€family€member€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€or€armed€security€officers.€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€has€beenÐ Ê   Ðrepeatedly€fined€for€her€refusal€to€comply€with€the€courts'€decisions.Ð ³  ÐÌ2.3€In€1994,€the€author€initiated€criminal€proceedings€against€her€for€not€complying€with€the€saidÐ …Õ  Ðcourt€decisions,€in€accordance€with€the€Criminal€Code€No.€140/1961€Coll.,€paragraph€171,€sectionÐ n¾  Ð3.€The€case€was€dealt€with€by€the€Court€of€Ô_ÔOkresnÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsoudÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔðBðstÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnadÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLabemÔ_Ô,€and€had€at€the€time€of€theÐ W§  Ðauthor's€submission€to€the€Committee€on€9€February€2002,€not€yet€been€decided.Ð @ ÐÌ2.4€Subsequently,€the€author€brought€new€criminal€charges€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€for€not€complying€withÐ b Ðfurther€preliminary€decisions€granting€the€author€access€to€his€son€from€December€1997€to€AugustÐ ûK Ð1998.€The€case€was€held€over€for€two€years,€from€11€January€1999€until€14€February€2001,€whenÐ ä4 Ðeventually€the€judge€withdrew€from€the€case.€The€new€judge€dismissed€the€charges€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_ÔÐ Í Ð(2)€However,€the€author€alleges€that€this€decision€was€not€delivered€to€the€parties€in€accordance€withÐ ¶ Ðlaw,€and€it€therefore€did€not€enter€into€force.€The€author's€complaint€to€the€Constitutional€Court€wasÐ Ÿï Ðdismissed.Ð ˆØ ÐÌ2.5€On€18€November€1993,€the€Ô_ÔKladnoÔ_Ô€Regional€Court€convicted€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€of€three€criminal€actsÐ Zª Ðrelating€to€the€child€custody€case.€The€decision€was€appealed,€but€shortly€before€the€verdict€of€theÐ C“ ÐCourt€of€Appeal,€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€was€granted€a€pardon€for€two€of€the€criminal€acts,€whereas€the€thirdÐ ,| Ðremained€undecided,€and€eventually€became€time-barred.€On€20€November€1995,€the€authorÐ e Ðsubmitted€a€constitutional€complaint,€which€was€rejected€on€the€ground€that€the€author€had€not€beenÐ þN Ða€party€to€the€criminal€case.Ð ç 7 ÐÌ2.6€In€a€statement€of€1€June€1992,€a€court€specialist€Ô_ÔMUDrÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔJ.K.Ô_Ô,€and€Ô_ÔMUDrÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔJ.B.Ô_Ô,€explained€that€theÐ ¹" ! Ðauthor's€wife€suffers€from€a€mental€disorder€in€the€development€of€her€personality.€In€anotherÐ ¢#ò" Ðstatement€by€Ô_ÔMUDrÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔJ.C.Ô_Ô€and€Ô_ÔPhDrÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔH.D.Ô_Ô€of€11€May€1993,€it€was€stated€that€the€author's€wife€wasÐ ‹$Û# Ðdamaging€the€interests€of€their€son€by€not€allowing€contact€between€the€father€and€the€son.€TheseÐ t%Ä $ Ðstatements€were€supported€by€statements€from€a€court€specialist,€Ô_ÔPhDrÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔV.F.Ô_Ô,€dated€14€May€1995€andÐ ]&­!% Ð15€April€1997.€Ð F'–"& ÐÌò òThe€Complaintó óÐ )h$( ÐÌ3.1€The€author€alleges€violations€of€his€and€his€son's€rights€to€protection€of€their€family€life,Ð ë*;&* Ðincluding€his€right€to€regular€access€to€his€son.Ð Ô+$'+ ÐÌ3.2€The€author€claims€that€the€Czech€authorities€have€refused€to€act€upon€the€court€decisionsÐ ¦-ö(- Ðallowing€him€regular€access€to€his€son,€thus€violating€his€and€his€son's€right€to€protection€of€theirÐ ° Ðfamily€life€under€article€17,€and€to€an€effective€remedy€under€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ™é ÐÌò òThe€State€party's€submission€on€the€admissibility€and€the€merits€of€the€communicationó óÐ k» ÐÌ4.1€By€note€Ô_ÔverbaleÔ_Ô€of€28€February€2002,€the€State€party€made€its€submission€on€the€admissibilityÐ > Ž Ðand€merits€of€the€communication.€It€regards€the€communication€as€inadmissible€for€non-exhaustionÐ ' w Ðof€domestic€remedies€and€for€being€manifestly€ill-founded.Ð  ` ÐÌ4.2€In€respect€of€the€facts,€the€State€party€explains€that€the€divorce€proceedings€between€the€authorÐ â 2  Ðand€his€wife,€which€commenced€in€1989,€are€still€pending.€The€custody€of€their€son€is€thereforeÐ Ë   Ðregulated€by€provisional€orders.€The€extensive€court€files€relating€to€the€divorce€case€now€amountÐ ´  Ðto€several€thousand€pages.Ð í  ÐÌ4.3€It€states€that€on€22€November€1994,€the€author€brought€criminal€charges€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€forÐ o¿  Ðobstructing€the€execution€of€a€court€decision,€pursuant€to€the€Criminal€Code,€Act€No.€140/1961,Ð X¨  ÐSection€171,€paragraph€3.Ð A‘ ÐÌ4.4€On€16€September€1997,€a€hearing€took€place€before€the€District€Court€in€Ô_ÔUstiÔ_Ô.€According€to€theÐ c Ðrecords€of€this€hearing,€after€the€Prosecuting€attorney's€speech,€the€author€demanded€informationÐ üL Ðabout€his€procedural€rights.€The€judge€advised€him€to€read€the€Criminal€Procedural€Code,€Act€No.Ð å5 Ð141/1961,€Section€43.€The€author€refused€to€do€so,€and€Ô_ÔpleadedÔ_Ô€that€the€judge,€the€prosecutingÐ Î Ðattorney,€and€all€attorneys€at€the€District€Public€Attorney's€office€were€Ô_ÔbiasedÔ_Ô€against€him.€He€alsoÐ · Ðinformed€the€court€that€he€had€brought€criminal€charges€against€the€judge.€On€19€September€1997,Ð  ð Ðthe€court€decided€that€the€judge€would€not€be€disqualified€for€bias.€The€author€challenged€theÐ ‰Ù Ðdecision€by€complaining€to€the€Regional€Court€in€Ô_ÔUstiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnadÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLabernÔ_Ô,€which€rejected€the€complaint€onÐ r Ð23€March€2000.€The€next€hearing€of€the€criminal€case€was€scheduled€for€23€February€2001,€but€theÐ [« Ðcase€is€still€pending.Ð D” ÐÌ4.5€On€29€December€1994,€the€author€again€brought€criminal€charges€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€for€the€crimeÐ f Ðof€oppression,€pursuant€to€Section€237€of€the€Criminal€Code.Ð ÿO ÐÌ4.6€However,€the€police€decided,€on€30€June€1995,€not€to€proceed€with€the€case.€The€author'sÐ Ñ!!  Ðcomplaint€about€this€decision€was€dismissed€by€a€resolution€of€the€Public€Attorney€in€Ô_ÔUstiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnadÔ_ÔÐ º" ! ÐÔ_ÔLabemÔ_Ô€pursuant€to€Section€148,€paragraph€1€(c)€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€paragraph€1.Ð £#ó" ÐÌ4.7€The€Public€Attorney€initiated€separate€criminal€charges€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô€for€obstructing€theÐ u%Å $ Ðexecution€of€a€court€decision€pursuant€to€the€Criminal€Code,€Section€171,€paragraph€3,€at€the€DistrictÐ ^&®!% ÐCourt€in€Ô_ÔUstÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnadÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLabemÔ_Ô.€The€hearing€took€place€on€13€May€and€17€August€1999€and€both€theÐ G'—"& Ðauthor€and€his€wife€were€heard.€The€trial€was€then€postponed€for€the€purpose€of€collecting€additionalÐ 0(€#' Ðevidence.€The€judge€requested€some€Regional€Court€documentation,€but€was€unable€to€obtain€itÐ )i$( Ðbecause€the€file€had€in€the€meantime€been€sent€to€the€High€Court€in€connection€with€the€author'sÐ *R%) Ðappeal.€The€next€hearing€was€also€adjourned€for€the€purpose€of€collecting€additional€evidence,€afterÐ ë*;&* ÐMs.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô's€lawyer€had€requested€that€the€evidence€should€include€an€expert€opinion€on€their€son.€TheÐ Ô+$'+ Ðcase€is€still€pending.Ð ½, (, ÐÐ ¦-ö(- Ð4.8€The€Public€Attorney€initiated€yet€another€criminal€case€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô,€on€the€basis€of€criminalÐ ° Ðcharges€filed€by€the€author.€However,€the€investigator€decided€to€discontinue€the€proceedings,€onÐ ™é Ðthe€basis€of€an€opinion€of€a€specialist€in€clinical€psychology,€who€stated€that€the€author's€son€wasÐ ‚Ò Ðvery€firm€in€his€views,€and€refuses€to€spend€with€the€author€the€time€ordered€by€the€court.Ð k» ÐÌ4.9€The€author€complained€against€the€investigator's€decision.€On€5€April€2000,€the€Public€AttorneyÐ =  Ðdismissed€his€complaint€as€unfounded,€pursuant€to€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€Section€148,Ð & v Ðparagraph€1€(a).Ð  _ ÐÌ4.10€The€author€sought€a€review€of€this€decision,€but€the€complaint€procedure€was€discontinued€onÐ á 1  Ð6€October€2000,€on€the€grounds€of€being€legally€unfounded.Ð Ê   ÐÌ4.11€The€author€has€filed€a€total€of€eight€constitutional€complaints,€seven€of€which€have€beenÐ œì  Ðdismissed€as€manifestly€ill-founded.€The€complaints€concerned€alleged€breaches€of€the€right€toÐ …Õ  Ðjudicial€protection.€In€two€of€the€constitutional€complaints,€he€complained€about€being€fined€forÐ n¾  Ðorally€attacking€a€judge.€In€another€motion,€he€required€that€a€fine€should€be€imposed€on€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô,Ð W§  Ðand€in€yet€another,€he€complained€against€a€police€inspector's€decision€not€to€initiate€criminalÐ @ Ðproceedings.€In€two€of€the€motions,€the€author€claimed€a€cancellation€of€a€Regional€Court€decision,Ð )y Ðand€of€a€Constitutional€Court€resolution,€and€in€another€he€claimed€additional€information€for€hisÐ b Ðpetition.€The€one€constitutional€complaint€that€was€not€dismissed€for€being€manifestly€unfounded,Ð ûK Ðwas€not€considered€by€the€Constitutional€Court€because€it€did€not€constitute€a€proper€motionÐ ä4 Ðinitiating€Constitutional€Court€proceedings,€but€merely€a€complaint€against€the€actions€of€the€PublicÐ Í ÐAttorney's€Office€and€a€request€for€preliminary€arrangements.Ð ¶ ÐÌ4.12€In€respect€of€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€author'sÐ ˆØ Ðconstitutional€complaints€concerned€other€rights€than€those€invoked€before€the€Committee,€andÐ qÁ Ðtherefore€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€for€non-exhaustion€of€domesticÐ Zª Ðremedies.Ð C“ ÐÌ4.13€Furthermore,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€documentation€provided€by€the€author€does€notÐ e Ðreveal€an€arbitrary€or€unlawful€interference€by€the€Czech€authorities€in€terms€of€article€17€of€theÐ þN ÐCovenant,€and€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€for€being€manifestly€ill-founded.€Ð ç 7 ÐÌ4.14€With€regard€to€the€merits€of€the€complaint,€in€relation€to€article€17,€the€State€party€reiterates€thatÐ ¹" ! Ðit€has€never€arbitrarily€or€unlawfully€interfered€with€the€author's€rights€in€the€terms€of€article€17€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€Covenant,€and€that€all€actions€and€decisions€of€the€courts€of€all€instances€have€complied€with€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðrules€of€procedure€set€forth€by€Czech€law.€It€points€out€that€the€author's€numerous€petitions€andÐ t%Ä $ Ðmotions€have€resulted€in€a€significant€delay€in€the€resolution€of€his€divorce€and€the€question€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðcustody€of€his€son.€According€to€the€State€party,€the€author€has€accused€of€bias€practically€allÐ F'–"& Ðauthorities€involved€in€the€resolution€of€his€family€issues,€including€the€bringing€of€criminal€chargesÐ /(#' Ðagainst€investigators,€attorneys€and€judges,€as€well€as€against€his€ex-parents-in-law€and€other€personsÐ )h$( Ðrelated€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_ÔÐ *Q%) ÐÌ4.15€In€respect€of€the€author's€claim€of€a€violation€of€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a)€and€(c)€of€theÐ Ó+#'+ ÐCovenant,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€communication€falls€outside€the€scope€of€this€paragraph.Ð ¼, (, ÐÐ ¥-õ(- Ðò òComments€by€the€authoró óÐ ° ÐÌ5.1€By€letter€of€22€April€2002,€the€author€responded€to€the€State€party's€submission.€He€contends€thatÐ ƒÓ Ðthe€State€party€in€several€ways€has€misrepresented€the€facts.€He€states€that€the€State€party€hasÐ l¼ Ðavoided€the€substance€of€the€case,€which€is€that€he€for€11€years€has€been€prevented€from€meetingÐ U¥ Ðwith€his€son,€and€that€the€Czech€authorities€have€neglected€to€protect€his€rights€as€a€father,€by€failingÐ > Ž Ðto€carry€out€appropriate€investigations€regarding€the€criminal€allegations€brought€by€him.Ð ' w ÐÌ5.2€With€respect€to€the€State€party's€allegation€that€the€author€has€not€exhausted€domestic€remediesÐ ù I Ðbecause€he€did€not€allege€Covenant€rights€in€his€constitutional€complaints,€the€author€points€out€thatÐ â 2  Ðhe€invoked€the€substance€of€the€Covenant€rights€in€maintaining€that€the€State€party€does€not€provideÐ Ë   Ðhim€with€protection€from€arbitrary€interference€with€his€privacy€and€family€life,€and€does€not€enforceÐ ´  Ðsuch€protection€with€all€available€means.Ð í  ÐÌ5.3€Regarding€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€author's€numerous€submissions€to€the€courts€haveÐ o¿  Ðdelayed€the€proceedings,€the€author€argues€that€the€State€party€confuses€cause€and€effect,€and€thatÐ X¨  Ðthese€numerous€submissions€are€a€result€of€the€State€party's€toleration€of€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô's€criminalÐ A‘ Ðbehaviour.Ð *z ÐÌ5.4€The€author€further€contends€that€the€only€criminal€charge€he€has€brought€against€any€of€his€son'sÐ üL Ðgrandparents€was€brought€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô's€mother,€for€limiting€his€parental€rights€and€attackingÐ å5 Ðhim€verbally€and€physically.€He€also€brought€charges€against€the€grandmother's€new€husband,€whoÐ Î Ðhad€threatened€to€kill€the€author,€and€has€not€been€sanctioned€for€bodily€harm€caused€to€the€authorÐ · Ðon€30€October€1999.Ð  ð ÐÌ5.5€According€to€the€author,€Section€1€of€the€Criminal€Code€provides€that€criminal€proceedings€mustÐ r Ðact€towards€the€strengthening€of€the€rule€of€law,€and€anticipate€and€prevent€criminal€acts.€HeÐ [« Ðconsiders€that€this€section€of€the€law€enforces€an€obligation€on€the€State€party€to€act€in€order€to€stopÐ D” Ðthe€violation€of€his€custody€rights€and€prevent€continuous€violations€of€the€same.€The€authorÐ -} Ðemphasizes€that€he€initiated€criminal€proceedings€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔR.P.Ô_Ô,€not€because€he€believes€it€isÐ f Ðnecessary€to€imprison€her,€but€because€the€procedure€of€taking€her€into€custody€may€persuade€herÐ ÿO Ðto€discontinue€her€culpable€refusal€of€his€custody€rights.Ð è 8 ÐÌò òIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeó óÐ º" ! ÐÌò òConsideration€of€admissibilityó óÐ $Ý# ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ `&°!% Ðmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€the€communicationÐ I'™"& Ðis€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð 2(‚#' ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€has€ascertained€that€the€same€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€anotherÐ *T%) Ðprocedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement€for€purposes€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€ofÐ í*=&* Ðthe€Optional€Protocol.Ð Ö+&'+ ÐÌAs€regards€the€admissibility€criterion€in€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€the€State€party€alleges€that€theÐ ¨-ø(- Ðauthor's€constitutional€complaints€concerned€other€rights€than€those€invoked€before€the€CommitteeÐ ° Ðand€that€he€thereby€has€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.€While€it€is€not€clear€what€the€exactÐ ™é Ðnature€of€these€proceedings€was,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€proceedings€regarding€divorce€andÐ ‚Ò Ðcustody€rights€have€continued€for€13€years€without€a€final€decision.€(3)Ð k» ÐÌ6.3€While€some€delays€in€the€proceedings€may€be€attributed€to€the€author€himself,€the€CommitteeÐ =  Ðconcludes€that€taking€into€account€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€application€of€the€remediesÐ & v Ðhas€been€unreasonably€prolonged€(4)for€the€purpose€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€OptionalÐ  _ ÐProtocol.Ð ø H ÐÌ6.4€The€Committee€notes€that€the€author€in€his€submissions€also€alleged€that€his€son's€rights€had€beenÐ Ê   Ðviolated.€However,€since€he€does€not€claim€that€he€is€representing€his€son,€the€Committee€finds€thatÐ ³  Ðthis€part€of€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð œì  ÐÌ6.5€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€communication€does€notÐ n¾  Ðreveal€an€arbitrary€or€unlawful€interference€by€the€Czech€authorities€in€terms€of€article€17€of€theÐ W§  ÐCovenant.€However,€the€Committee€considers€that€the€author€has€substantiated€sufficiently,€for€theÐ @ Ðpurpose€of€admissibility,€that€his€communication€raises€issues€under€article€17€of€the€Covenant,€byÐ )y Ðthe€alleged€failure€of€the€State€party€to€protect€the€author's€right€to€have€access€to€his€son.€It€thereforeÐ b Ðdecides€that€the€communication€is€admissible€insofar€as€it€raises€issues€under€article€17,€inÐ ûK Ðconjunction€with€article€2€of€the€Covenant.Ð ä4 ÐÌò òConsideration€of€the€meritsó óÐ ¶ ÐÌ7.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€of€all€theÐ ‰Ù Ðinformation€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€the€OptionalÐ r ÐProtocol.Ð [« ÐÌ7.2€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€17,€the€Committee€notes€the€State€party's€contention€thatÐ -} Ðthere€is€no€documentation€of€arbitrary€or€unlawful€interference€by€the€State€party€with€the€author'sÐ f Ðfamily,€that€the€decisions€of€courts€of€all€instances€have€complied€with€the€rules€of€procedure€set€byÐ ÿO Ðlaw,€and€that€the€delay€in€the€resolution€of€the€divorce€and€custody€proceedings€is€due€to€theÐ è 8 Ðnumerous€petitions€submitted€by€the€author.€However,€the€current€communication€is€not€based€onlyÐ Ñ!!  Ðon€article€17,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€but€also€on€paragraph€2€of€the€said€provision,€accordingÐ º" ! Ðto€which€everyone€has€the€right€to€the€protection€of€the€law€against€interference€or€attacks€on€one'sÐ £#ó" Ðprivacy€and€family€life.Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌ7.3€The€Committee€considers€that€article€17€generally€includes€effective€protection€to€the€right€ofÐ ^&®!% Ða€parent€to€regular€contact€with€his€or€her€minor€children.€While€there€may€be€exceptionalÐ G'—"& Ðcircumstances€in€which€denying€contact€is€required€in€the€interests€of€the€child€and€cannot€beÐ 0(€#' Ðdeemed€unlawful€or€arbitrary,€in€the€present€case€the€domestic€courts€of€the€State€party€have€ruledÐ )i$( Ðthat€such€contact€should€be€maintained.€Consequently,€the€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whetherÐ *R%) Ðthe€State€party€has€afforded€effective€protection€to€the€author's€right€to€meet€his€son€in€accordanceÐ ë*;&* Ðwith€the€court€decisions€of€the€State€party.Ð Ô+$'+ ÐÌ7.4€Although€the€courts€repeatedly€fined€the€author's€wife€for€failure€to€respect€their€preliminaryÐ ¦-ö(- Ðorders€regulating€the€author's€access€to€his€son,€these€fines€were€neither€fully€enforced€nor€replacedÐ ° Ðwith€other€measures€aimed€at€ensuring€the€author's€rights.€In€these€circumstances€and€taking€intoÐ ™é Ðaccount€the€considerable€delays€at€various€stages€of€the€proceedings,€the€Committee€takes€the€viewÐ ‚Ò Ðthat€the€author's€rights€under€article€17€of€the€Covenant,€in€conjunction€with€article€2,€paragraphsÐ k» Ð1€and€2€of€the€Covenant,€did€not€receive€effective€protection.€Consequently,€the€Committee€is€of€theÐ T¤ Ðview€that€the€facts€before€it€disclose€a€violation€of€article€17,€in€conjunction€with€article€2€of€theÐ =  ÐCovenant.Ð & v ÐÌ8.€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€is€under€anÐ ø H Ðobligation€to€provide€the€author€with€an€effective€remedy,€which€should€include€measures€to€ensureÐ á 1  Ðprompt€implementation€of€the€court's€orders€regarding€contact€between€the€author€and€his€son.€TheÐ Ê   ÐState€party€is€also€under€an€obligation€to€prevent€similar€violations€in€the€future.Ð ³  ÐÌ9.€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€has€recognizedÐ …Õ  Ðthe€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€the€CovenantÐ n¾  Ðor€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€to€ensure€to€allÐ W§  Ðindividuals€within€its€territory€or€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant€andÐ @ Ðto€provide€an€effective€and€enforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€theÐ )y ÐCommittee€wishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€about€the€measuresÐ b Ðtaken€to€give€effect€to€the€Committee's€Views.€The€State€party€is€also€requested€to€publish€theÐ ûK ÐCommittee's€Views.Ð ä4 ÐÌ___________________Ð ¶ ÐÌ*€The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentÐ ˆØ Ðcommunication:€Mr.€Ô_ÔAbdelfattahÔ_Ô€Amor,€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ando,€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNatwarlalÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô,Ð qÁ ÐMr.€Maurice€Ô_ÔGllÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAhanhanzoÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ahmed€Ô_ÔTawfikÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKhalilÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ô_ÔEckartÔ_Ô€Klein,€Mr.€David€Ô_ÔKretzmerÔ_Ô,Ð Zª ÐMr.€Ô_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Rafael€Ô_ÔRivasÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPosadaÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Martin€Ô_ÔScheininÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Ivan€Shearer,€Mr.Ð C“ ÐÔ_ÔHipð;ðlitoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSolariÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔYrigoyenÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Patrick€Vella€and€Mr.€Maxwell€Ô_ÔYaldenÔ_Ô.Ð ,| ÐÌAn€individual€opinion€signed€by€Committee€members€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ando€and€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_ÔÐ þN ÐÔ_ÔNatwarlalÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ô€is€appended€to€this€document.Ð ç 7 ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.€SubsequentlyÐ ¹" ! Ðto€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee's€annual€report€to€theÐ ¢#ò" ÐGeneral€Assembly.]Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌÌò òIndividual€Opinion€by€Committee€members€Mr.€Ô_ÔNisukeÔ_Ô€Ando€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔPrafullachandraÔ_ÔÐ F'–"& ÐÔ_ÔNatwarlalÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhagwatiÔ_Ôó óÐ 0(€#' ÐÌWhile€agreeing€with€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€on€the€basis€of€article€5,€paragraph€2,Ð *S%) Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol€I€am€unable€to€share€the€Committee's€views€that€the€author's€rights€underÐ ì*<&* Ðarticle€17,€in€conjunction€with€article€3€of€the€Covenant,€have€been€violated.Ð Õ+%'+ ÐÌFirst€of€all,€in€my€opinion€the€provision€of€article€1€does€not€guarantee€an€"absolute€right"€of€aÐ §-÷(- Ðseparated€father€to€have€access€to€his€child,€who€is€under€the€mother's€custody.€The€CommitteeÐ ° Ðshould€recall€its€views€on€Communication€No.€201/1985€(Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€v.€the€Netherlands),€where€theÐ ™é Ðsame€or€similar€situation€was€considered€as€raising€issues€under€article€23.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌSecondly,€the€Committee€seems€to€conclude€that€the€author€did€not€receive€"effective€protection"Ð T¤ Ðas€provided€for€under€articles€17€and€2€(para.€7.4).€However,€I€consider€that€the€State€party€has€doneÐ =  Ðwhat€it€could.€Thus,€in€a€preliminary€court€decision€of€the€Regional€Court€Prague€West€of€12€JulyÐ & v Ð1993,€confirmed€in€a€further€preliminary€court€decision€of€2€October€1995,€the€author€was€grantedÐ  _ Ðthe€right€to€see€his€son€every€second€weekend.€In€fact,€the€author€was€allowed€to€see€his€son€duringÐ ø H Ð1994€and€1995,€though€on€an€irregular€basis€and€under€the€surveillance€of€a€family€member€of€theÐ á 1  Ðmother€or€armed€security€officers€(para.€2.2).€Later,€facing€non-compliance€with€the€court€decisionÐ Ê   Ðon€the€part€of€the€mother,€the€Public€Attorney€initiated€criminal€charges€against€the€mother€(para.Ð ³  Ð4.6).€In€addition,€the€Public€Attorney€initiated€other€criminal€charges€against€the€mother€on€the€basisÐ œì  Ðof€criminal€charges€filed€by€the€author€himself€(para.€4.7).€Obviously,€the€mother€has€beenÐ …Õ  Ðrepeatedly€fined€(para.€2.2).Ð n¾  ÐÌThirdly,€while€I€do€not€understand€why€the€mother€has€tenaciously€refused€to€allow€the€father€to€seeÐ @ Ðhis€son,€I€take€note€of€the€fact€that€during€the€procedure€of€the€other€criminal€charges€mentionedÐ )y Ðabove,€a€specialist€in€clinical€psychology€stated€that€the€son€was€very€firm€in€his€views€and€refusedÐ b Ðto€spend€with€the€father€the€time€ordered€by€the€court€(para.€4.7).€Considering€that€the€son,€who€wasÐ ûK Ðwell€over€10€years€of€age,€should€be€able€to€judge€on€his€own€and€that€the€father€made€no€commentÐ ä4 Ðon€this€particular€point,€I€think€that€the€Committee€should€give€due€consideration€to€the€son's€ownÐ Í Ðwish.€In€this€connection,€I€like€to€emphasize€that€what€matters€most€in€the€present€case€is€"the€bestÐ ¶ Ðinterest€of€the€child"€and€that€the€Czech€courts€should€have€concrete€materials€to€determine€theÐ Ÿï Ðmatter,€while€the€author€has€not€provided€the€Committee€with€sufficient€materials€to€reverse€theÐ ˆØ Ðcourts'€judgements.€In€any€event,€it€has€been€an€established€jurisprudence€of€the€Committee€that€itÐ qÁ Ðis€not€for€the€Committee€but€the€relevant€domestic€courts€to€evaluate€facts€and€evidence€in€a€givenÐ Zª Ðcase€unless€such€evaluation€suffers€from€impartiality€or€constitutes€denial€of€justice.€In€the€presentÐ C“ Ðcase,€no€such€circumstance€exists.Ð ,| ÐÌFinally,€the€author€contends€that€the€State€Party€fails€to€enforce€protection€with€all€available€meansÐ þN Ð(para.€5.3)€and€the€Committee€states€that€the€State€Party€is€under€the€obligation€to€provide€the€authorÐ ç 7 Ðwith€an€effective€remedy,€which€should€include€measures€to€ensure€prompt€implementation€of€theÐ Ð!   Ðcourt's€orders€regarding€contact€(para.€8).€However,€considering€the€specific€nature€of€family€mattersÐ ¹" ! Ðin€general€and€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€present€case,€I€must€admit€that€judicial€remedy€isÐ ¢#ò" Ðnot€omnipotent€and€that€there€are€certain€limits€over€which€it€could€not€and€should€not€go.€Therefore,Ð ‹$Û# Ðit€is€difficult€to€expect€that€the€State€Party€could€have€done€more€than€it€actually€did.Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌÌò òNotesó óÐ /(#' ÐÌ1.€€The€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ratified€the€Optional€Protocol€in€March€1991,€but€on€31Ð *R%) ÐDecember€1992€the€Czech€and€Slovak€Federal€Republic€ceased€to€exist.€On€22€February€1993,€theÐ ë*;&* ÐCzech€Republic€notified€its€succession€to€the€Covenant€and€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð Ô+$'+ ÐÌ2.€€This€point€of€the€submission€is€unclear.Ð ¦-ö(- Ї3.€€See€Case€No.€514/1992,€Ô_ÔFeiÔ_Ô€v.€Colombia,€paragraph€8.4,€Views€adopted€on€4€April€1995.Ð ° ÐÌ4.€€See€also€Case€No.€417/1990,€Balaguer€v.€Spain,€Views€adopted€on€15€July€1994.Ð ‚Ò ÐÓßÓ