Consejos de búsqueda
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- While the exact meaning of "promptly" may vary depending on objective circumstances, delays should not exceed a few days from the time of arrest. In the view of the Committee, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to transport the individual and to prepare for the judicial hearing; any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. Longer detention in the custody of law enforcement officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases the risk of ill-treatment. Laws in most States parties fix precise time limits, sometimes shorter than 48 hours, and those limits should also not be exceeded. An especially strict standard of promptness, such as 24 hours, should apply in the case of juveniles.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 22, 2021
Paragraph
Article 1: The right to self-determination of peoples 1984, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- With regard to paragraph 1 of article 1, States parties should describe the constitutional and political processes which in practice allow the exercise of this right.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1984
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service 1996, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- In contrast with other rights and freedoms recognized by the Covenant (which are ensured to all individuals within the territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the State) article 25 protects the rights of "every citizen". State reports should outline the legal provisions which define citizenship in the context of the rights protected by article 25. No distinctions are permitted between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Distinctions between those who are entitled to citizenship by birth and those who acquire it by naturalization may raise questions of compatibility with article 25. State reports should indicate whether any groups, such as permanent residents, enjoy these rights on a limited basis, for example, by having the right to vote in local elections or to hold particular public service positions.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1996
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- As noted earlier in paragraphs 13 and 20, concerning the content of political discourse, the Committee has observed that in circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high. Thus, the mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the Covenant. Moreover, all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition. Accordingly, the Committee expresses concern regarding laws on such matters as, lese majesty, desacato, disrespect for authority, disrespect for flags and symbols, defamation of the head of state and the protection of the honour of public officials, and laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned. States parties should not prohibit criticism of institutions, such as the army or the administration.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 6: The right to life 1985, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- In its previous general comment, the Committee also observed that it is the supreme duty of States to prevent wars. War and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1985
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service 1996, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- In conformity with paragraph (b), elections must be conducted fairly and freely on a periodic basis within a framework of laws guaranteeing the effective exercise of voting rights. Persons entitled to vote must be free to vote for any candidate for election and for or against any proposal submitted to referendum or plebiscite, and free to support or to oppose government, without undue influence or coercion of any kind which may distort or inhibit the free expression of the elector's will. Voters should be able to form opinions independently, free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of any kind. Reasonable limitations on campaign expenditure may be justified where this is necessary to ensure that the free choice of voters is not undermined or the democratic process distorted by the disproportionate expenditure on behalf of any candidate or party. The results of genuine elections should be respected and implemented.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1996
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The right of the accused to be tried without undue delay, provided for by article 14, paragraph 3 (c), is not only designed to avoid keeping persons too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate and, if held in detention during the period of the trial, to ensure that such deprivation of liberty does not last longer than necessary in the circumstances of the specific case, but also to serve the interests of justice. What is reasonable has to be assessed in the circumstances of each case, taking into account mainly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the administrative and judicial authorities. In cases where the accused are denied bail by the court, they must be tried as expeditiously as possible. This guarantee relates not only to the time between the formal charging of the accused and the time by which a trial should commence, but also the time until the final judgement on appeal. All stages, whether in first instance or on appeal must take place "without undue delay."
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- In order to safeguard the rights of the accused under paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 14, judges should have authority to consider any allegations made of violations of the rights of the accused during any stage of the prosecution.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1984
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- To the extent that States parties impose security detention (sometimes known as administrative detention or internment) not in contemplation of prosecution on a criminal charge, the Committee considers that such detention presents severe risks of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Such detention would normally amount to arbitrary detention as other effective measures addressing the threat, including the criminal justice system, would be available. If, under the most exceptional circumstances, a present, direct and imperative threat is invoked to justify the detention of persons considered to present such a threat, the burden of proof lies on States parties to show that the individual poses such a threat and that it cannot be addressed by alternative measures, and that burden increases with the length of the detention. States parties also need to show that detention does not last longer than absolutely necessary, that the overall length of possible detention is limited and that they fully respect the guarantees provided for by article 9 in all cases. Prompt and regular review by a court or other tribunal possessing the same attributes of independence and impartiality as the judiciary is a necessary guarantee for those conditions, as is access to independent legal advice, preferably selected by the detainee, and disclosure to the detainee of, at least, the essence of the evidence on which the decision is taken.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Arbitrary detention creates risks of torture and ill-treatment, and several of the procedural guarantees in article 9 serve to reduce the likelihood of such risks. Prolonged incommunicado detention violates article 9 and would generally be regarded as a violation of article 7. The right to personal security protects interests in bodily and mental integrity that are also protected by article 7.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- That information must be provided immediately upon arrest. However, in exceptional circumstances, such immediate communication may not be possible. For example, a delay may be required before an interpreter can be present, but any such delay must be kept to the absolute minimum necessary.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- It is only with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions. In every case in which the State restricts freedom of expression it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and their provisions in strict conformity with article 19.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- There are other elements in article 9 that in the Committee's opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4. The fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is non-derogable, insofar as even situations covered by article 4 cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances. The existence and nature of a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation may, however, be relevant to a determination of whether a particular arrest or detention is arbitrary. Valid derogations from other derogable rights may also be relevant when a deprivation of liberty is characterized as arbitrary because of its interference with another right protected by the Covenant. During international armed conflict, substantive and procedural rules of international humanitarian law remain applicable and limit the ability to derogate, thereby helping to mitigate the risk of arbitrary detention. Outside that context, the requirements of strict necessity and proportionality constrain any derogating measures involving security detention, which must be limited in duration and accompanied by procedures to prevent arbitrary application, as explained in paragraph 15 above, including review by a court within the meaning of paragraph 45 above.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The Covenant does not require that a court decision upholding the lawfulness of detention be subject to appeal. If a State party does provide for appeal or further instances, the delay may reflect the changing nature of the proceeding and in any event must not be excessive.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The first sentence of paragraph 3 applies to persons "arrested or detained on a criminal charge", while the second sentence concerns persons "awaiting trial" on a criminal charge. Paragraph 3 applies in connection with ordinary criminal prosecutions, military prosecutions and other special regimes directed at criminal punishment.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The right to liberty of person is not absolute. Article 9 recognizes that sometimes deprivation of liberty is justified, for example, in the enforcement of criminal laws. Paragraph 1 requires that deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary, and must be carried out with respect for the rule of law.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Deprivation of personal liberty is without free consent. Individuals who go voluntarily to a police station to participate in an investigation, and who know that they are free to leave at any time, are not being deprived of their liberty.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Some countries have resorted to special tribunals of "faceless judges" composed of anonymous judges, e.g. within measures taken to fight terrorist activities. Such courts, even if the identity and status of such judges has been verified by an independent authority, often suffer not only from the fact that the identity and status of the judges is not made known to the accused persons but also from irregularities such as exclusion of the public or even the accused or their representatives from the proceedings; restrictions of the right to a lawyer of their own choice; severe restrictions or denial of the right to communicate with their lawyers, particularly when held incommunicado; threats to the lawyers; inadequate time for preparation of the case; or severe restrictions or denial of the right to summon and examine or have examined witnesses, including prohibitions on cross-examining certain categories of witnesses, e.g. police officers responsible for the arrest and interrogation of the defendant. Tribunals with or without faceless judges, in circumstances such as these, do not satisfy basic standards of fair trial and, in particular, the requirement that the tribunal must be independent and impartial.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 17: The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation 1988, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law. Effective measures have to be taken by States to ensure that information concerning a person's private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, and is never used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant. In order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Every individual should also be able to ascertain which public authorities or private individuals or bodies control or may control their files. If such files contain incorrect personal data or have been collected or processed contrary to the provisions of the law, every individual should have the right to request rectification or elimination.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1988
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- Reports from States parties have often failed to take into account that each State party must ensure the rights in the Covenant to "all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction" (art. 2, para. 1). In general, the rights set forth in the Covenant apply to everyone, irrespective of reciprocity, and irrespective of his or her nationality or statelessness.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1986
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, each State party undertakes "to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity". This constitutes the basis of the wording consistently used by the Committee in issuing its Views in cases where a violation has been found: "In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is required to provide the author with an effective remedy. By becoming a party to the Optional Protocol the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established. In this respect, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views."
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2009
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 17: The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation 1988, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- Even with regard to interferences that conform to the Covenant, relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorized interference must be made only by the authority designated under the law, and on a case by case basis. Compliance with article 17 requires that the integrity and confidentiality of correspondence should be guaranteed de jure and de facto. Correspondence should be delivered to the addressee without interception and without being opened or otherwise read. Surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire tapping and recording of conversations should be prohibited. Searches of a person's home should be restricted to a search for necessary evidence and should not be allowed to amount to harassment. So far as personal and body search is concerned, effective measures should ensure that such searches are carried out in a manner consistent with the dignity of the person who is being searched. Persons being subjected to body search by State officials, or medical personnel acting at the request of the State, should only be examined by persons of the same sex.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Families
- Year
- 1988
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- The right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which they understand of the nature and cause of criminal charges brought against them, enshrined in paragraph 3 (a), is the first of the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings of article 14. This guarantee applies to all cases of criminal charges, including those of persons not in detention, but not to criminal investigations preceding the laying of charges. Notice of the reasons for an arrest is separately guaranteed in article 9, paragraph 2 of the Covenant. The right to be informed of the charge "promptly" requires that information be given as soon as the person concerned is formally charged with a criminal offence under domestic law, or the individual is publicly named as such. The specific requirements of subparagraph 3 (a) may be met by stating the charge either orally - if later confirmed in writing - or in writing, provided that the information indicates both the law and the alleged general facts on which the charge is based. In the case of trials in absentia, article 14, paragraph 3 (a) requires that, notwithstanding the absence of the accused, all due steps have been taken to inform accused persons of the charges and to notify them of the proceedings.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- While article 14 is not included in the list of non-derogable rights of article 4, paragraph 2 of the Covenant, States derogating from normal procedures required under article 14 in circumstances of a public emergency should ensure that such derogations do not exceed those strictly required by the exigencies of the actual situation. The guarantees of fair trial may never be made subject to measures of derogation that would circumvent the protection of non-derogable rights. Thus, for example, as article 6 of the Covenant is non-derogable in its entirety, any trial leading to the imposition of the death penalty during a state of emergency must conform to the provisions of the Covenant, including all the requirements of article 14. Similarly, as article 7 is also non-derogable in its entirety, no statements or confessions or, in principle, other evidence obtained in violation of this provision may be invoked as evidence in any proceedings covered by article 14, including during a state of emergency, except if a statement or confession obtained in violation of article 7 is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred. Deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, is prohibited at all times.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Paragraph 3 (e) of article 14 guarantees the right of accused persons to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them. As an application of the principle of equality of arms, this guarantee is important for ensuring an effective defence by the accused and their counsel and thus guarantees the accused the same legal powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses and of examining or cross examining any witnesses as are available to the prosecution. It does not, however, provide an unlimited right to obtain the attendance of any witness requested by the accused or their counsel, but only a right to have witnesses admitted that are relevant for the defence, and to be given a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against them at some stage of the proceedings. Within these limits, and subject to the limitations on the use of statements, confessions and other evidence obtained in violation of article 7, it is primarily for the domestic legislatures of States parties to determine the admissibility of evidence and how their courts assess it.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Subparagraph 3 (b) provides that accused persons must have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. This provision is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and an application of the principle of equality of arms. In cases of an indigent defendant, communication with counsel might only be assured if a free interpreter is provided during the pre-trial and trial phase. What counts as "adequate time" depends on the circumstances of each case. If counsel reasonably feel that the time for the preparation of the defence is insufficient, it is incumbent on them to request the adjournment of the trial. A State party is not to be held responsible for the conduct of a defence lawyer, unless it was, or should have been, manifest to the judge that the lawyer's behaviour was incompatible with the interests of justice. There is an obligation to grant reasonable requests for adjournment, in particular, when the accused is charged with a serious criminal offence and additional time for preparation of the defence is needed.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- The issues of when rights can be derogated from, and to what extent, cannot be separated from the provision in article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant according to which any measures derogating from a State party's obligations under the Covenant must be limited "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". This condition requires that States parties provide careful justification not only for their decision to proclaim a state of emergency but also for any specific measures based on such a proclamation. If States purport to invoke the right to derogate from the Covenant during, for instance, a natural catastrophe, a mass demonstration including instances of violence, or a major industrial accident, they must be able to justify not only that such a situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation, but also that all their measures derogating from the Covenant are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. In the opinion of the Committee, the possibility of restricting certain Covenant rights under the terms of, for instance, freedom of movement (article 12) or freedom of assembly (article 21) is generally sufficient during such situations and no derogation from the provisions in question would be justified by the exigencies of the situation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2001
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Restrictions must be provided by law. Law may include laws of parliamentary privilege and laws of contempt of court. Since any restriction on freedom of expression constitutes a serious curtailment of human rights, it is not compatible with the Covenant for a restriction to be enshrined in traditional, religious or other such customary law.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 12: Freedom of movement 1999, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The principle of proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions, but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in applying the law. States should ensure that any proceedings relating to the exercise or restriction of these rights are expeditious and that reasons for the application of restrictive measures are provided.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 1999
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- Article 14 is of a particularly complex nature, combining various guarantees with different scopes of application. The first sentence of paragraph 1 sets out a general guarantee of equality before courts and tribunals that applies regardless of the nature of proceedings before such bodies. The second sentence of the same paragraph entitles individuals to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, if they face any criminal charges or if their rights and obligations are determined in a suit at law. In such proceedings the media and the public may be excluded from the hearing only in the cases specified in the third sentence of paragraph 1. Paragraphs 2 - 5 of the article contain procedural guarantees available to persons charged with a criminal offence. Paragraph 6 secures a substantive right to compensation in cases of miscarriage of justice in criminal cases. Paragraph 7 prohibits double jeopardy and thus guarantees a substantive freedom, namely the right to remain free from being tried or punished again for an offence for which an individual has already been finally convicted or acquitted. States parties to the Covenant, in their reports, should clearly distinguish between these different aspects of the right to a fair trial.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2007
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph