Human Rights Committee hears reports on follow-up to concluding observations and the views

Human Rights Committee
28 July 2010

This morning the Committee heard presentations of progress reports by Committee members on the status of follow-up to the Committee’s concluding observations and actions taken by States parties to implement those, as well as and on the follow-up to Views. The Committee then adopted the reports, as orally amended.

Abdelfattah Amor, Committee Member serving as Special Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, presenting the progress report on that subject, noted that follow-up procedures had been suspended for several States as there was less than a year before the next periodic report from these countries was due. This included Austria, Brazil, Hong Kong, Mali, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Namibia, Paraguay, Democratic Republic of Congo and Yemen.

Mr. Amor then updated the Committee on follow-up procedures and proposed various measures. He proposed to request further information to the United States, the Central African Republic, Georgia, Libya, Costa Rica, Tunisia and Japan and to send reminders to Honduras, the Ukraine, Barbados, Zambia, San Marino, Nicaragua, Denmark, Rwanda, and Australia.

Information had been received from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, the Czech Republic and Spain and was currently being translated. Mr. Amor said they were still waiting for additional informational material from Sudan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Monaco.

Further, meetings would be requested with Honduras, Madagascar, Algeria, Botswana and Panama. France would be discussed at a later meeting and the information submitted by Sweden had been considered as largely satisfactory, said Mr. Amor.

The Rapporteur then asked fellow Committee Members whether diplomatic assurances provided by a State party in the case of an extradition were sufficient to comply with Committee recommendations or whether compliance should be pursued in another way. Several Committee Experts said that if the Rapporteur was not satisfied with a State’s compliance then this should be pursued like any other recommendation, assurances notwithstanding.

A Committee Member said that working with non-governmental organizations was very important as it gave the Committee a sense of what was happening on the ground and was of the highest value to their recommendations and their evaluation of follow-up measures in countries. One Committee Expert noted however, that while the work of these civil society groups was important and helpful, perhaps it was not the best idea to integrate their work into the formal follow-up process of the Committee.

Yuji Iwasawa, Committee Chairperson, speaking on behalf of Ruth Wedgwood, Committee Member and Special Rapporteur for Follow-Up to Views, presented the report on follow-up to individual communications. Mr. Iwasawa noted that Cameroon had sent the Committee a reply regarding a case of torture, arbitrary detention and freedom of expression. Cameroon said that it was willing to provide reparations to the author, but had been unable to find him. The author of the communication had said that he feared for his life and was living in exile and thus was unable to meet with government ministers to discuss his case. The author had requested that the perpetrators be tried and punished, that the State party guaranteed his security and paid for his medical care abroad and paid US$ 930,000 in damages. The Committee will await the State party’s reply to this request.

Mr. Iwasawa then turned to two cases regarding Spain. The first dealt with the right to review. The author of the communication had said that the State party had failed to review his case after 10 years. A letter had been sent to the State party and the Committee was awaiting a reply so the dialogue was considering ongoing. The second case involved discrimination on the basis of racial profiling. Spain had responded that it had offered the author both oral and written apologies, but the author had said this was not sufficient and wanted Spain to issue a public apology, take steps to prevent a recurrence in the future and pay her € 60,000 for moral and psychological injury and legal costs. The request for compensation was rejected as the State party said the author had lost her case in Spanish courts. Numerous Committee Members suggested that this case be considered closed because Spain had implemented all the recommendations made by the Committee in this case, including issuing an apology, and no mention had been made of compensation in the recommendations.

Mr. Iwasawa then turned to a case in Paraguay regarding the protection of a family, including minor children. The case involved a mother who had taken her two children back to Paraguay and the author of the complaint was the father in Spain who alleged that he did not have access to his children. The State party denied that it had violated the Covenant and submitted that the author had not exhausted the legal avenues available to him in Paraguay and had not filed the proper complaints under Paraguayan law. Paraguay suggested acting as a mediator between the two parties and that the author filed the proper complaints. There was an extradition request from Spain for the ex-wife in Paraguay who, it was claimed, had removed minor children from the country. The Supreme Court in Paraguay denied this extradition request. It was proposed that the Committee would await the response of the author and the dialogue would be considered ongoing.

With regard to a case in the Ukraine pertaining to unfair trial and no right to legal representation, Mr. Iwasawa said the State party had said there was no basis for this complaint. The author of the communication had said the State party had done nothing to implement the views of the Committee. It was suggested a meeting with a representative of the State party be arranged and the dialogue be considered ongoing. According to one Committee Member, the remedy constructed by the Committee in 2003 was very weak and thus it could be said that the State party had complied with the Committee’s recommendation, which was that the State party should consider releasing the author early. Another Committee Member agreed that, in future recommendations, remedies should be more clearly worded so as to not leave room for disparate interpretations.

The Committee will hold its next public meeting at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 29 July, when it is scheduled to adopt its annual report to the General Assembly.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record