Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 138 entities
7 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Template | Original document | Paragraph text | Body | Document type | Thematics | Topic(s) | Person(s) affected | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 13 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Certain basic guarantees apply to all persons deprived of their liberty. Some of these are specified in the Convention, and the Committee consistently calls upon States parties to use them. The Committee's recommendations concerning effective measures aim to clarify the current baseline and are not exhaustive. Such guarantees include, inter alia, maintaining an official register of detainees, the right of detainees to be informed of their rights, the right promptly to receive independent legal assistance, independent medical assistance, and to contact relatives, the need to establish impartial mechanisms for inspecting and visiting places of detention and confinement, and the availability to detainees and persons at risk of torture and ill-treatment of judicial and other remedies that will allow them to have their complaints promptly and impartially examined, to defend their rights, and to challenge the legality of their detention or treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 17 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee observes that States parties are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture as defined in the Convention. Thus, States parties should adopt effective measures to prevent such authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, from consenting to or acquiescing in any acts of torture. The Committee has concluded that States parties are in violation of the Convention when they fail to fulfil these obligations. For example, where detention centres are privately owned or run, the Committee considers that personnel are acting in an official capacity on account of their responsibility for carrying out the State function without derogation of the obligation of State officials to monitor and take all effective measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 2 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Thus, the general rule is that each one of the rights of the Covenant must be guaranteed without discrimination between citizens and aliens. Aliens receive the benefit of the general requirement of non discrimination in respect of the rights guaranteed in the Covenant, as provided for in article 2 thereof. This guarantee applies to aliens and citizens alike. Exceptionally, some of the rights recognized in the Covenant are expressly applicable only to citizens (art. 25), while article 13 applies only to aliens. However, the Committee's experience in examining reports shows that in a number of countries other rights that aliens should enjoy under the Covenant are denied to them or are subject to limitations that cannot always be justified under the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 3 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | A few constitutions provide for equality of aliens with citizens. Some constitutions adopted more recently carefully distinguish fundamental rights that apply to all and those granted to citizens only, and deal with each in detail. In many States, however, the constitutions are drafted in terms of citizens only when granting relevant rights. Legislation and case law may also play an important part in providing for the rights of aliens. The Committee has been informed that in some States fundamental rights, though not guaranteed to aliens by the Constitution or other legislation, will also be extended to them as required by the Covenant. In certain cases, however, there has clearly been a failure to implement Covenant rights without discrimination in respect of aliens. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee considers that in their reports States parties should give attention to the position of aliens, both under their law and in actual practice. The Covenant gives aliens all the protection regarding rights guaranteed therein, and its requirements should be observed by States parties in their legislation and in practice as appropriate. The position of aliens would thus be considerably improved. States parties should ensure that the provisions of the Covenant and the rights under it are made known to aliens within their jurisdiction. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
The position of aliens under the Covenant 1986, para. 8 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Once an alien is lawfully within a territory, his freedom of movement within the territory and his right to leave that territory may only be restricted in accordance with article 12, paragraph 3. Differences in treatment in this regard between aliens and nationals, or between different categories of aliens, need to be justified under article 12, paragraph 3. Since such restrictions must, inter alia, be consistent with the other rights recognized in the Covenant, a State party cannot, by restraining an alien or deporting him to a third country, arbitrarily prevent his return to his own country (art. 12, para. 4). | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1986 | ||
Article 27: The rights of minorities 1994, para. 5.2. | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Article 27 confers rights on persons belonging to minorities which "exist" in a State party. Given the nature and scope of the rights envisaged under that article, it is not relevant to determine the degree of permanence that the term "exist" connotes. Those rights simply are that individuals belonging to those minorities should not be denied the right, in community with members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to practice their religion and speak their language. Just as they need not be nationals or citizens, they need not be permanent residents. Thus, migrant workers or even visitors in a State party constituting such minorities are entitled not to be denied the exercise of those rights. As any other individual in the territory of the State party, they would, also for this purpose, have the general rights, for example, to freedom of association, of assembly, and of expression. The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1994 | ||
Article 12: Freedom of movement 1999, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State enjoys, within that territory, the right to move freely and to choose his or her place of residence. In principle, citizens of a State are always lawfully within the territory of that State. The question whether an alien is "lawfully" within the territory of a State is a matter governed by domestic law, which may subject the entry of an alien to the territory of a State to restrictions, provided they are in compliance with the State's international obligations. In that connection, the Committee has held that an alien who entered the State illegally, but whose status has been regularized, must be considered to be lawfully within the territory for the purposes of art 122. Once a person is lawfully within a State, any restrictions on his or her rights guaranteed by article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as any treatment different from that accorded to nationals, have to be justified under the rules provided for by article 12, paragraph 33. It is, therefore, important that States parties indicate in their reports the circumstances in which they treat aliens differently from their nationals in this regard, and how they justify this difference in treatment. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1999 | ||
Article 12: Freedom of movement 1999, para. 8 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Freedom to leave the territory of a State may not be made dependent on any specific purpose or on the period of time the individual chooses to stay outside the country. Thus travelling abroad is covered as well as departure for permanent emigration. Likewise, the right of the individual to determine the State of destination is part of the legal guarantee. As the scope of article 12, paragraph 2, is not restricted to persons lawfully within the territory of a State, an alien being legally expelled from the country is likewise entitled to elect the State of destination, subject to the agreement of that State. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1999 | ||
Article 12: Freedom of movement 1999, para. 21 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In no case may a person be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his or her own country. The reference to the concept of arbitrariness in this context is intended to emphasize that it applies to all State action, legislative, administrative, and judicial; it guarantees that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances. The Committee considers that there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own country could be reasonable. A State party must not, by stripping a person of nationality or by expelling an individual to a third country, arbitrarily prevent this person from returning to his or her own country. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1999 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the accused cannot understand or speak the language used in court as provided for by article 14, paragraph 3 (f) enshrines another aspect of the principles of fairness and equality of arms in criminal proceedings. This right arises at all stages of the oral proceedings. It applies to aliens as well as to nationals. However, accused persons whose mother tongue differs from the official court language are, in principle, not entitled to the free assistance of an interpreter if they know the official language sufficiently to defend themselves effectively. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 3 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Liberty of person concerns freedom from confinement of the body, not a general freedom of action. Security of person concerns freedom from injury to the body and the mind, or bodily and mental integrity, as further discussed in paragraph 9 below. Article 9 guarantees those rights to everyone. "Everyone" includes, among others, girls and boys, soldiers, persons with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, aliens, refugees and asylum seekers, stateless persons, migrant workers, persons convicted of crime, and persons who have engaged in terrorist activity. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2014 | ||
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 14 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of the permissible reasons for depriving a person of liberty. Article 9 expressly recognizes that individuals may be detained on criminal charges, and article 11 expressly prohibits imprisonment on ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. Other regimes involving deprivation of liberty must also be established by law and must be accompanied by procedures that prevent arbitrary detention. The grounds and procedures prescribed by law must not be destructive of the right to liberty of person. The regime must not amount to an evasion of the limits on the criminal justice system by providing the equivalent of criminal punishment without the applicable protections. Although conditions of detention are addressed primarily by articles 7 and 10, detention may be arbitrary if the manner in which the detainees are treated does not relate to the purpose for which they are ostensibly being detained. The imposition of a draconian penalty of imprisonment for contempt of court without adequate explanation and without independent procedural safeguards is arbitrary. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2014 | ||
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 36 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Once the individual has been brought before the judge, the judge must decide whether the individual should be released or remanded in custody for additional investigation or to await trial. If there is no lawful basis for continuing the detention, the judge must order release. If additional investigation or trial is justified, the judge must decide whether the individual should be released (with or without conditions) pending further proceedings because detention is not necessary, an issue addressed more fully by the second sentence of paragraph 3. In the view of the Committee, detention on remand should not involve a return to police custody, but rather to a separate facility under different authority, where risks to the rights of the detainee can be more easily mitigated. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2014 | ||
Article 9: Liberty and security of person 2014, para. 46 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Paragraph 4 leaves the option of taking proceedings to the persons being detained or those acting on their behalf; unlike paragraph 3, it does not require automatic initiation of review by the authorities detaining an individual. Laws that exclude a particular category of detainees from the review required by paragraph 4 violate the Covenant. Practices that render such review effectively unavailable to an individual, including incommunicado detention, also amount to a violation. To facilitate effective review, detainees should be afforded prompt and regular access to counsel. Detainees should be informed, in a language they understand, of their right to take proceedings for a decision on the lawfulness of their detention. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2014 | ||
Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin 2005, para. 25 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Pursuant to article 12 of the Convention, in determining the measures to be adopted with regard to unaccompanied or separated children, the child's views and wishes should be elicited and taken into account (art. 12 (1)). To allow for a well-informed expression of such views and wishes, it is imperative that such children are provided with all relevant information concerning, for example, their entitlements, services available including means of communication, the asylum process, family tracing and the situation in their country of origin (arts. 13, 17 and 22 (2)). In guardianship, care and accommodation arrangements, and legal representation, children's views should also be taken into account. Such information must be provided in a manner that is appropriate to the maturity and level of understanding of each child. As participation is dependent on reliable communication, where necessary, interpreters should be made available at all stages of the procedure. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2005 | ||
Children’s rights in juvenile justice 2007, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Article 40 (2) of CRC contains an important list of rights and guarantees that are all meant to ensure that every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law receives fair treatment and trial. Most of these guarantees can also be found in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the Human Rights Committee elaborated and commented on in its general comment No. 13 (1984) (Administration of justice) which is currently in the process of being reviewed. However, the implementation of these guarantees for children does have some specific aspects which will be presented in this section. Before doing so, the Committee wishes to emphasize that a key condition for a proper and effective implementation of these rights or guarantees is the quality of the persons involved in the administration of juvenile justice. The training of professionals, such as police officers, prosecutors, legal and other representatives of the child, judges, probation officers, social workers and others is crucial and should take place in a systematic and ongoing manner. These professionals should be well informed about the child's, and particularly about the adolescent's physical, psychological, mental and social development, as well as about the special needs of the most vulnerable children, such as children with disabilities, displaced children, street children, refugee and asylum-seeking children, and children belonging to racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic or other minorities (see paragraphs 6-9 above). Since girls in the juvenile justice system may be easily overlooked because they represent only a small group, special attention must be paid to the particular needs of the girl child, e.g. in relation to prior abuse and special health needs. Professionals and staff should act under all circumstances in a manner consistent with the child's dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, and which promotes the child's reintegration and his/her assuming a constructive role in society (art. 40 (1)). All the guarantees recognized in article 40 (2), which will be dealt with hereafter, are minimum standards, meaning that States parties can and should try to establish and observe higher standards, e.g. in the areas of legal assistance and the involvement of the child and her/his parents in the judicial process. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
The right of the child to be heard 2009, para. 21 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [The Committee emphasizes that article 12 imposes no age limit on the right of the child to express her or his views, and discourages States parties from introducing age limits either in law or in practice which would restrict the child's right to be heard in all matters affecting her or him. In this respect, the Committee underlines the following:] Third, States parties are also under the obligation to ensure the implementation of this right for children experiencing difficulties in making their views heard. For instance, children with disabilities should be equipped with, and enabled to use, any mode of communication necessary to facilitate the expression of their views. Efforts must also be made to recognize the right to expression of views for minority, indigenous and migrant children and other children who do not speak the majority language. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2009 | ||
The right of the child to be heard 2009, para. 124 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee emphasizes that these children have to be provided with all relevant information, in their own language, on their entitlements, the services available, including means of communication, and the immigration and asylum process, in order to make their voice heard and to be given due weight in the proceedings. A guardian or adviser should be appointed, free of charge. Asylum-seeking children may also need effective family tracing and relevant information about the situation in their country of origin to determine their best interests. Particular assistance may be needed for children formerly involved in armed conflict to allow them to pronounce their needs. Furthermore, attention is needed to ensure that stateless children are included in decision-making processes within the territories where they reside. | Committee on the Rights of the Child | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2009 | ||
Torture, ill-treatment and coercion during interviews/ Universal protocol for non-coercive, ethically sound, evidence-based and empirically founded interviewing practices 2016, para. 63 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The practice of detaining persons incommunicado and questioning them in unofficial or secret facilities is of grave concern because it exposes individuals to heightened risks of torture. Secret detention amounts to torture or ill-treatment in itself and should be abolished and criminalized under national law. States must ensure that questioning is conducted only at official and accessible facilities, regardless of the form of detention. In the criminal justice system, any evidence obtained from detainees in unofficial places of detention and not confirmed by them during subsequent interviews at official locations ought to be inadmissible in court (see A/56/156). | Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
The right to access information 2013, para. 40 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In the context of human rights violations, and especially in cases of serious violations, the rights of victims and their families to access information can have several aspects. First, gaining access to information regarding the circumstances surrounding a human rights violation is usually essential in order to give effect to other rights, such as due process, guarantees to a fair trial and the right to a remedy. Moreover, clarifying what occurred is in itself one of the elements of reparations for victims and family members. Lastly, in cases of violations such as disappearances, the violation is continuing and ceases only once family members are able to ascertain the facts and determine the fate of the disappeared person. The refusal of the State to provide information, or the provision by it of false information, constitutes an additional violation because it prolongs and deepens the anguish, in addition to the moral and emotional pain. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2013 | ||
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 46 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to freedom of opinion and expression must be respected "without distinction of any kind" (see article 2 (1) of the Covenant). Members of some groups, however, often face particular discrimination when it comes to the implementation of restrictions on expression. The Special Rapporteurs on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on the situation of human rights defenders and on the independence of judges and lawyers address issues pertaining to human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), often in collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Given their focus and detailed reporting, I will not highlight here our shared concerns about restrictions imposed against NGOs, human rights defenders environmental activists, refugees and lawyers. Instead I will highlight several other groups whose expression is particularly subject to repression. | Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2016 | ||
Challenges faced by groups most at risk when exercising or seeking to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or of association 2014, para. 22 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should be enjoyed by everyone, as provided for by article 2 of the Covenant and resolutions 15/21, 21/16 and 24/5 of the Human Rights Council. Importantly, in its resolution 24/5, the Council reminded States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote those rights. Despite this, some Member States have laws that contain explicitly discriminatory provisions prohibiting assemblies by certain groups. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Challenges faced by groups most at risk when exercising or seeking to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or of association 2014, para. 23 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In Malaysia, for example, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 prohibits people under the age of 21 from organizing a public demonstration. Children under the age of 15 cannot even participate. Migrants and non-citizens may also face undue restrictions on their assembly rights. The same Act explicitly divests non-citizens of their right to organize or participate in a peaceful assembly. Article 33 of the Constitution of Mexico states that foreigners "may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country", a provision that can be interpreted as prohibiting the rights of non-citizens to engage in peaceful assemblies. Similarly, article 354 of the Constitution of Myanmar extends the right of assembly only to citizens. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Challenges faced by groups most at risk when exercising or seeking to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or of association 2014, para. 25 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In the case of non-citizens and migrants, the Special Rapporteur notes that international law does allow for some citizenship-related limitations on certain political rights, such as voting rights and the ability to hold political office. It is however precisely for that reason that States should ensure that migrants are not stripped of other fundamental rights, particularly assembly rights. An individual's lack of citizenship or legal status does not mean that she or he should have no voice whatsoever in the political, economic or social affairs of her or his country of residence. In a sense, groups that are disenfranchised from mainstream political activities, such as voting and holding office, have an even greater need for alternative means to participate in the public sphere. Peaceful assemblies are an important tool for allowing the voices of otherwise excluded groups to be heard. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
Challenges faced by groups most at risk when exercising or seeking to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and/or of association 2014, para. 37 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Special Rapporteur has found that citizenship and residency status frequently affect assembly rights, often by design. As noted above, a number of States, including Singapore, Malaysia and Myanmar, formally deny the right to freedom of peaceful assembly to non-citizens. The Special Rapporteur finds no basis in international law for completely divesting non-citizens of their assembly rights. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is particularly important for non-citizens and migrants, who may lack other mechanisms with which to advance their political, social and economic interests. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2014 | ||
The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of natural resource exploitation projects 2015, para. 52 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Special Rapporteur notes that requirements to obtain prior authorization before gatherings related to the exploitation of natural resources - such as information sessions, consultations, public hearings and the like - not only infringe on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, they also impede the right of affected communities to access information and participate in decision-making. In Uganda, non-governmental organizations working on oil issues are reportedly required by authorities to seek permission, in particular from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development before they can meet with grassroots communities, although the authorities have made efforts to remedy this situation. | Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association | Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Governance structures for internal displacement 2015, para. 77 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework sets out eight benchmarks to help determine the extent to which a durable solution has been achieved. Working groups or task forces on durable solutions should use these criteria to monitor progress towards achieving durable solutions. The benchmarks are the following: safety and security; adequate standard of living; employment and livelihoods; restoration of housing, land and property; access to documentation; family reunification; participation in public affairs; and effective remedies, including access to justice. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons
| Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Governance structures for internal displacement 2015, para. 87 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In many cases internally displaced persons have lost their documentation or are still registered in their former places of residence. This can have a detrimental impact and can contribute to further marginalize communities, ultimately impeding their free participation in public affairs. Overcoming this situation may require special measures to be implemented before return, local integration or resettlement. For instance, in a situation where large numbers of internally displaced persons have not returned, it may be necessary to carry out voter registration and education programmes at internally displaced persons sites or to set up special polling stations. The establishment of measures to allow internally displaced persons to vote is essential to protecting their right to political participation. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons
| Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 | ||
Human rights of internally displaced persons in the context of the Post-2015 development agenda 2015, para. 81 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Efforts to ensure durable solutions and effective sustainable development programmes must involve full consultation with and the meaningful participation of IDPs. It is imperative that they not be considered simply as beneficiaries of development policies and programmes, but as full partners in the design, implementation and monitoring of such activities. IDPs have a right to full participation in decisions affecting them, and measures, including their return or relocation, should be undertaken with their full consent. Measures that do not meet those criteria violate their rights and do not constitute durable solutions. Participation of IDPs is also essential to ensuring effective accountability mechanisms. | Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons
| Special Procedures' report |
|
| 2015 |