WPCq1 j@hsE;WRI!E'ƌa @ys3׈_R?t'<{`9TTuCbաD%K5s9BEۥzN P;'T5K{>xy)w)|1/ (De% X&_JJGFq+?\e7k})DyrS7/hʢj̥!,G4JU_u0w3ShTAPEr0o! 0v! 0`l" 0`" 0`,# 0`# 0`# 08L$ 0$ 02V% 0% 0:& 0Y& 0_' 0 v' 0j( 0) B*n+ D/+ D++ 0+ D/v- 0- 06s. 0. 0:/ 0^/ 0<I0U60U>0U*0N#1#1^ %1w11451I1X1 mZ1\\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  ?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`Arial g/ f/'̶3|xU !UKUS.,  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Estevill_Ԁ_v._ԀSpain  CommunicationNo1004/2001 X 25March2003 , | _CCPR_/C/77/D/1004/2001  P ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:Mr.Luis_Pascual_Ԁ_Estevill_Ԁ(representedbyMr.Javier_Pascual_Ԁ_Franquesa_) z  Allegedvictim:Theauthor H Stateparty:Spain f   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil  andPoliticalRights,  Meetingon25March2003,  Adoptsthefollowing: \    Decisiononadmissibility  g %  1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.Luis_Pascual_Ԁ_Estevill_,aSpanishnational.Inhis !#  communicationof12March2001,heclaimstobethevictimofaviolationbySpainofarticle14, " ! paragraph5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthorisrepresented #" bycounsel. $#   Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor  a&!%  2.1On4July1996,theSupremeCourtsentencedMr._Pascual_Ԁ_Estevill_,amemberoftheGeneral 4(#' CounciloftheJudiciary,tosixyears'suspensionfromtheexerciseofjudicialfunctionsforbreach )m$( ofpublictrustincombinationwithtwooffencesofunlawfuldetention. *V%)  2.2Theauthorsubmittedanapplicationfor_amparo_totheConstitutionalCourt,claimingviolation +('+ ofhisrighttoeffectivelegalprotectionandinfringementofhisrighttodueprocess,insofarasthe ,(, judgementhandeddownbytheSupremeCourt,actingascourtoffirstinstance,deniedtheauthor -(- _accesstootherremedies.Hisapplicationwasturneddownon17March1997.   2.3TheauthortookhiscasetotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights,claiming(a)aviolation  ofarticle13oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsand(b)aviolationofarticle2,paragraph k 1,ofProtocolNo.7totheConventionandofarticles14and15oftheInternationalCovenanton T CivilandPoliticalRights.Inadecisiondated6July1998,theCommissiondeclaredtheapplication =  "manifestlyillfounded"andconsequentlyinadmissible.1/ & v   Thecomplaint   I  3.Theauthorclaimsaviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenantonthegroundsthatthe    judgementsoftheSupremeCourtarewithoutremedy,i.e.thatincriminalproceedingsagainst   protectedpersonstheprincipleofsoleinstanceapplies,whichmeansthat,asintheauthor'scase,   theconvictedpersonisdeniedaccesstotheappealsmachinery.     TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility  Z   4.1Initsobservationsdated15October2001,theStatepartynotesthatcriminalproceedingshave -} beentakenagainstLuisPascualEstevillonanumberofchargessincelate1994inconnectionwith f hisconductasajudge. O  4.2TheStatepartychallengestheadmissibilityofthecommunicationonthebasisofthereservation ! toarticle5,paragraph2(a),thatitenteredondepositingitsinstrumentofratificationoftheOptional   ProtocoltotheCovenant,andcontendsthatthereservationpreventstheconsiderationofamatter  whichhasbeenpreviouslysubmittedtoanotherinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.TheState  partyclaimsthatthereservationappliesinthepresentcasebecausetheauthorsubmittedthesame u mattertotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights,which,havingconsideredtheauthor's ^ complaintthathehadnoeffectiveremedyagainsthissentence,concluded,initsrulingon G inadmissibility,thatsincetheauthorhadsubmittedanapplicationforamparototheConstitutional 0 Court,hehadaneffectiveremedyavailablebeforeadomesticcourt. i  4.3TheStatepartyfurtherconsidersthatthecommunicationshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleon  ; thegroundsthatitconstitutesanabuseoftherightofsubmission,underarticle3oftheOptional !$  Protocol,sincetheauthor,who,asaformerjudge,undoubtedlyhasaboveaveragelegal " ! qualifications,chosehisownmomentandsubmittedthecommunication48monthsafterthefinal #" domesticjudgementand32monthsaftertheEuropeanCommission'sdecision. $#  4.4Lastly,theStatepartyarguesthatitwastheauthorhimselfwho,givenhispositionasmember a&!% oftheGeneralCounciloftheJudiciary,insistedonbeingtriedbytheSupremeCourt,whichhe J'"& consideredthecompetentjudicialbody.Consequently,on7November1994,hesubmittedawritten 3(#' applicationtotheHighCourtofCataloniaforthecriminalproceedingsagainsthimtobetransferred )l$( totheSecondDivisionoftheSupremeCourt.Whenthatapplicationwasrejected,hesubmittedan *U%) applicationforreconsideration,whichwasalsorejectedbytheHighCourt.Finally,on14November *>&* 1994,hesubmittedanapplicationtotheSupremeCourtrequestingittoassumejurisdictionto +''+ investigateandtryhim;theSupremeCourt'sresponsewastodeclareitselfcompetent"inaccordance ,(, withtherequest".Tosummarize,theStatepartyarguesthattheauthorcannotcallintoquestionhis -(- ownactionsandcomplaintotheCommitteethathehasbeentriedinsoleinstancebytheSupreme  Court,whenindomesticproceduresallhiseffortsweredirectedtowardsensuringthathewouldin  factbetriedbythatCourtand,havingattainedthatobjective,hesubmittednottheslightest  complaintinthatregardduringtheproceedings. k   Theauthor'scommentsontheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility  >   5.1Inhiscommentsof11January2002inresponsetotheStateparty'sobservationson  a admissibility,theauthorarguedthattheinformationprovidedbytheStatepartyconcerningthe  J criminalproceedingsagainsthimhasnobearingonthegroundsonwhichtheclaimof  3  inadmissibilityisbased.     5.2WithregardtotheStateparty'sreservation,theauthorstatesthatamattermaybebroughtbefore   theCommitteeevenifithasbeensubmittedtotheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsprovidedthat,   asinthiscase,theCourthasnotconsideredthemeritsofthecase.HeclaimsthattheCommittee's p  caselawis"constant"(sic)inholdingthatamatterhasnotbeenconsideredifanapplicationunder Y  anotherinternationalprocedurehasbeendeclaredinadmissibleandhasnotbeenconsideredonthe B merits,andhereferstotheCommittee'sViewsinthecaseofCasanovasv.France.2/Hefurther +{ claimsthatthedecisiononinadmissibilityinhiscasewasbasedonarticle27,paragraph2,ofthe d EuropeanConvention,whichreadsasfollows:"TheCommissionshallconsiderinadmissibleany M petitionsubmittedunderarticle25whichitconsidersincompatiblewiththeprovisionsofthepresent 6 Convention,manifestlyillfoundedoranabuseoftherightofpetition",whichleavesnoroomfor  doubtthathiscasewasnotconsideredonthemerits.Lastly,theauthorclaimsthathisapplication  foramparototheConstitutionalCourtwasalsodeclaredinadmissible,thatthereforeitwasnot  consideredonthemeritsandtherewasnoreviewofthejudgementhandeddowninfirstinstance.   5.3Withregardtotheinadmissibilityofthecommunicationunderarticle3oftheOptional \ Protocol,theauthorstatesthatthearticleshouldbegivenamorerestrictiveinterpretationthanthat E appliedbytheStateparty.Healsoclaimsthatrequiringagivenindividual,asinthiscase,tosubject .~ himselftotimeframesinthelightofpersonalandprofessionalcircumstances,isaviolationofthe g principleoflegalityandequality,sincetheOptionalProtocolsetsnodeadlineswhatsoeverfor  P submissionofacomplainttotheCommittee.  9  5.4Lastly,theauthorinformstheCommitteethatinSpainitisnottheaccusedwhochoosesthe " ! courtsbutthecourtsthatarestipulatedbythelaw.3/ #"   TheCommittee'sdeliberationsonadmissibility  v% $  6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee I'"& must,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotthecommunication 2(#' isadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. )k$(  6.2Theonlycomplaintbytheauthorisrelatedtoarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant,which *=&* stipulatesthat"Everyoneconvictedofacrimeshallhavetherighttohisconvictionandsentenced +&'+ beingreviewedbyhighertribunal."TheCommitteenotesthattheStateparty'slegalsystemwould ,(, havegrantedtherightofappealiftheauthorhadbeentriedbytheHighCourtofCatalonia. -(- However,itwastheauthorhimselfwhorepeatedlyinsistedthathebetrieddirectlybytheSupreme  Court.Bearinginmindthattheauthorisaformerjudgewithagreatdealofexperience,the  Committeeconsidersthat,byinsistingonbeingtriedonlybytheSupremeCourt,theauthorhas  renouncedhisrightofappeal.TheCommitteeconsidersthat,inthecircumstances,theallegation k bytheauthorconstitutesanabuseoftherighttosubmitcommunications,inaccordancewitharticle T 3oftheOptionalProtocol. =   6.3Consequently,theCommitteedoesnotdeemitnecessarytoconsiderwhetherthesubmission  _ ofoneandthesamemattertotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightspreventsconsideration  H ofthecaseinquestiononthebasisoftheStateparty'sreservationconcerningarticle5,paragraph  1  2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.     7Accordingly,theCommitteedecides,    (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol; n   (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtheauthor. @   [AdoptedinSpanish,FrenchandEnglish,theSpanishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently K tobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttothe 4 GeneralAssembly.]   *ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent  communication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraNatwarlalBhagwati,  Mr.AlfredoCastilleroHoyos,Ms.ChristineChanet,Mr.FrancoDepasquale,Mr.MauriceGll q Ahanhanzo,Mr.WalterKlin,Mr.AhmedTawfikKhalil,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.RafaelRivas Z Posada,Mr.NigelRodley,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.IvanShearer,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen, C Ms.RuthWedgwood,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden. ,|   Notes   7  1/DecisionoftheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightsdated6July1998(No.38224/97),in " ! whichitwasheldthatProtocolNo.7totheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHuman #" Rightscouldnotbeinvokedbytheauthor,sinceSpainhadnotratifiedtheProtocol. $#  2/CommunicationNo.441/1990,Casanovasv.France,findingsadoptedon19July1994 ^&!%  3/Accordingtoarticle57,paragraph1,oftheJudiciary(Organization)Actof6July1985,"The 0(#' CriminalDivisionoftheSupremeCourtshallbecompetentto:(2)investigateandtrycasesagainst )i$( thePresidentoftheGovernment,thePresidentsoftheCongressandtheSenate,thePresidentsof *R%) theSupremeCourtandoftheGeneralCounciloftheJudiciary,thePresidentoftheConstitutional *;&* Court,membersofthegovernment,DeputiesandSenators,membersoftheGeneralCouncilofthe +$'+ Judiciary(88)." , (, |