Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 575 entities
7 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Template | Original document | Paragraph text | Body | Document type | Thematics | Topic(s) | Person(s) affected | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1963, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | 4. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the Council of:
a. any signature without reservation in respect of ratification or acceptance;
b. any signature with reservation in respect of ratification or acceptance;
c. the deposit of any instrument of ratification or acceptance;
d. the date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
Done at Strasbourg, this 6th day of May 1963, in English and in French, both texts being equally authoritative, in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General shall transmit certified copies to each of the signatory States. | Council of Europe | Regional treaty |
|
| 1963 | ||
American Convention on Human Rights 1969, para. undefined | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The members of the Commission shall be elected by secret ballot of the General Assembly from the list of candidates referred to in Article 79. The candidates who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of the member states shall be declared elected. Should it become necessary to have several ballots in order to elect all the members of the Commission, the candidates who receive the smallest number of votes shall be eliminated successively, in the manner determined by the General Assembly. | Organization of American States | Regional treaty |
|
| 1969 | ||
Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1984, para. undefined | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify all the member States of the Council of Europe of:
a. any signature;
b. the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
c. any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with Articles 6 and 9;
d. any other act, notification or declaration relating to this Protocol.
In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
Done at Strasbourg, this 22nd day of November 1984, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe. | Council of Europe | Regional treaty |
|
| 1984 | ||
Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance 2013, para. d | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | CONVINCED that the principles of equality and non-discrimination among human persons are dynamic democratic concepts that foster the promotion of effective legal equality and presuppose an obligation on the State’s part to adopt special measures to protect the rights of individuals or groups that are victims of discrimination and intolerance, in any area of human endeavor, whether public or private, with a view to cultivating equitable conditions for equal opportunity and to combating discrimination and intolerance in all their individual, structural, and institutional manifestations; | Organization of American States | Regional treaty |
|
| 2013 | ||
Implementation of article 14 by States parties 2012, para. 41 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee has consistently held that amnesties for the crime of torture are incompatible with the obligations of States parties under the Convention, including under article 14. As was pointed out in general comment No. 2, "amnesties or other impediments which preclude or indicate unwillingness to provide prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of non-derogability." The Committee considers that amnesties for torture and ill-treatment pose impermissible obstacles to a victim in his or her efforts to obtain redress and contribute to a climate of impunity. The Committee therefore calls on States parties to remove any amnesties for torture or ill-treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2012 | ||
Implementation of article 14 by States parties 2012, para. 46h | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [On the implementation of article 14, the Committee has observed the need to provide adequate information on the implementation of article 14 in States parties' reports. Therefore, the Committee wishes to underscore that specific information should be provided on the following:] The complaints mechanisms available for victims of torture or ill-treatment, including how such mechanisms are made known and accessible to all victims. States parties should also include data disaggregated by age, gender, nationality, location and alleged violation, on the number of complaints received through such mechanisms. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2012 | ||
Implementation of article 14 by States parties 2012, para. 46l | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [On the implementation of article 14, the Committee has observed the need to provide adequate information on the implementation of article 14 in States parties' reports. Therefore, the Committee wishes to underscore that specific information should be provided on the following:] The legal aid and witness protection available to victims of torture or ill-treatment as well as witnesses and others who have intervened on behalf of victims, including how such protection is made known and how it is made available in practice; the number of victims who have been granted legal aid; the number of persons who have been protected by State witness protection; and the State party's evaluation of the effectiveness of such protection. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2012 | ||
Article 9: Right to liberty and security of persons 1982, para. 3 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Another matter is the total length of detention pending trial. In certain categories of criminal cases in some countries this matter has caused some concern within the Committee, and members have questioned whether their practices have been in conformity with the entitlement "to trial within a reasonable time or to release" under paragraph 3. Pre trial detention should be an exception and as short as possible. The Committee would welcome information concerning mechanisms existing and measures taken with a view to reducing the duration of such detention. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1982 | ||
Conclusion on civil registration 2013, para. (d) ii | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Encourages States to make accessible civil registration, in particular through:] carrying out regular awareness campaigns or community outreach activities; | Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | ExCom Conclusion |
|
| 2013 | ||
Conclusion on civil registration 2013, para. (d) v | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [Encourages States to make accessible civil registration, in particular through:] supporting the recording of medically certified cause of death, as appropriate; | Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees | ExCom Conclusion |
|
| 2013 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | States parties are obligated to eliminate any legal or other obstacles that impede the eradication of torture and ill-treatment; and to take positive effective measures to ensure that such conduct and any recurrences thereof are effectively prevented. States parties also have the obligation continually to keep under review and improve their national laws and performance under the Convention in accordance with the Committee's concluding observations and views adopted on individual communications. If the measures adopted by the State party fail to accomplish the purpose of eradicating acts of torture, the Convention requires that they be revised and/or that new, more effective measures be adopted. Likewise, the Committee's understanding of and recommendations in respect of effective measures are in a process of continual evolution, as, unfortunately, are the methods of torture and ill-treatment. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 6 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee reminds all States parties to the Convention of the non-derogable nature of the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention. In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Committee specified that the obligations in articles 2 (whereby "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture"), 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) are three such provisions that "must be observed in all circumstances". The Committee considers that articles 3 to 15 are likewise obligatory as applied to both torture and ill-treatment. The Committee recognizes that States parties may choose the measures through which they fulfill these obligations, so long as they are effective and consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 7 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee also understands that the concept of "any territory under its jurisdiction," linked as it is with the principle of non-derogability, includes any territory or facilities and must be applied to protect any person, citizen or non-citizen without discrimination subject to the de jure or de facto control of a State party. The Committee emphasizes that the State's obligation to prevent torture also applies to all persons who act, de jure or de facto, in the name of, in conjunction with, or at the behest of the State party. It is a matter of urgency that each State party should closely monitor its officials and those acting on its behalf and should identify and report to the Committee any incidents of torture or ill-treatment as a consequence of anti-terrorism measures, among others, and the measures taken to investigate, punish, and prevent further torture or ill-treatment in the future, with particular attention to the legal responsibility of both the direct perpetrators and officials in the chain of command, whether by acts of instigation, consent or acquiescence. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 11 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | By defining the offence of torture as distinct from common assault or other crimes, the Committee considers that States parties will directly advance the Convention's overarching aim of preventing torture and ill-treatment. Naming and defining this crime will promote the Convention's aim, inter alia, by alerting everyone, including perpetrators, victims, and the public, to the special gravity of the crime of torture. Codifying this crime will also (a) emphasize the need for appropriate punishment that takes into account the gravity of the offence, (b) strengthen the deterrent effect of the prohibition itself, (c) enhance the ability of responsible officials to track the specific crime of torture and (d) enable and empower the public to monitor and, when required, to challenge State action as well as State inaction that violates the Convention. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 2 by States parties 2008, para. 12 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Through review of successive reports from States parties, the examination of individual communications, and monitoring of developments, the Committee has, in its concluding observations, articulated its understanding of what constitute effective measures, highlights of which we set forth here. In terms of both the principles of general application of article 2 and developments that build upon specific articles of the Convention, the Committee has recommended specific actions designed to enhance each State party's ability swiftly and effectively to implement measures necessary and appropriate to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment and thereby assist States parties in bringing their law and practice into full compliance with the Convention. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2008 | ||
Implementation of article 14 by States parties 2012, para. 19 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Under article 2 of the Convention, States parties shall enact "effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction." As clarified by the Committee in its general comment No. 2, "States parties must make the offence of torture punishable as an offence under its criminal law, in accordance, at a minimum, with the elements of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention, and the requirements of article 4." The failure of States parties to enact legislation that clearly incorporates their obligations under the Convention and criminalizes torture and ill-treatment, and the resulting absences of torture and ill-treatment as criminal offences, obstructs the victim's capacity to access and enjoy his or her rights guaranteed under article 14. | Committee against Torture | General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2012 | ||
Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression 1983, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Paragraph 3 expressly stresses that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and for this reason certain restrictions on the right are permitted which may relate either to the interests of other persons or to those of the community as a whole. However, when a State party imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself. Paragraph 3 lays down conditions and it is only subject to these conditions that restrictions may be imposed: the restrictions must be "provided by law"; they may only be imposed for one of the purposes set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3; and they must be justified as being "necessary" for that State party for one of those purposes. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1983 | ||
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 1 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee notes that article 14 of the Covenant is of a complex nature and that different aspects of its provisions will need specific comments. All of these provisions are aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, and to this end uphold a series of individual rights such as equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Not all reports provided details on the legislative or other measures adopted specifically to implement each of the provisions of article 14. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1984 | ||
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 19 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | In considering State reports differing views have often been expressed as to the scope of paragraph 7 of article 14. Some States parties have even felt the need to make reservations in relation to procedures for the resumption of criminal cases. It seems to the Committee that most States parties make a clear distinction between a resumption of a trial justified by exceptional circumstances and a re trial prohibited pursuant to the principle of ne bis in idem as contained in paragraph 7. This understanding of the meaning of ne bis in idem may encourage States parties to reconsider their reservations to article 14, paragraph 7. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1984 | ||
Article 18: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1993, para. 1 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18 (1) is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thoughts on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others. The Committee draws the attention of States parties to the fact that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1993 | ||
Continuity of obligations 1997, para. 4 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The rights enshrined in the Covenant belong to the people living in the territory of the State party. The Human Rights Committee has consistently taken the view, as evidenced by its longstanding practice, that once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Covenant, such protection devolves with territory and continues to belong to them, notwithstanding change in government of the State party, including dismemberment in more than one State or State succession or any subsequent action of the State party designed to divest them of the rights guaranteed by the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1997 | ||
Article 40: Reporting Obligations of States parties 2002, para. 4b | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | [To remedy such situations, the Committee has adopted new rules:] When the State party has not presented a report, the Committee may, at its discretion, notify the State party of the date on which the Committee proposes to examine the measures taken by the State party to implement the rights guaranteed under the Covenant:
(i) If the State party is represented by a delegation, the Committee will, in presence of the delegation, proceed with the examination on the date assigned;
(ii) If the State party is not represented, the Committee may, at its discretion, either decide to proceed to consider the measures taken by the State party to implement the guarantees of the Covenant at the initial date or notify a new date to the State party.
For the purposes of the application of these procedures, the Committee shall hold its meetings in public session if a delegation is present, and in private if a delegation is not present, and shall follow the modalities set forth in the reporting guidelines and in the rules of procedure of the Committee. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2002 | ||
Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant - replaces GC No. 3 2004, para. 16 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that States Parties make reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Without reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated, the obligation to provide an effective remedy, which is central to the efficacy of article 2, paragraph 3, is not discharged. In addition to the explicit reparation required by articles 9, paragraph 5, and 14, paragraph 6, the Committee considers that the Covenant generally entails appropriate compensation. The Committee notes that, where appropriate, reparation can involve restitution, rehabilitation and measures of satisfaction, such as public apologies, public memorials, guarantees of non-repetition and changes in relevant laws and practices, as well as bringing to justice the perpetrators of human rights violations. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2004 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 11 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Similarly, the imposition of fees on the parties to proceedings that would de facto prevent their access to justice might give rise to issues under article 14, paragraph 1. In particular, a rigid duty under law to award costs to a winning party without consideration of the implications thereof or without providing legal aid may have a deterrent effect on the ability of persons to pursue the vindication of their rights under the Covenant in proceedings available to them. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 58 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | As a set of procedural guarantees, article 14 of the Covenant often plays an important role in the implementation of the more substantive guarantees of the Covenant that must be taken into account in the context of determining criminal charges and rights and obligations of a person in a suit at law. In procedural terms, the relationship with the right to an effective remedy provided for by article 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant is relevant. In general, this provision needs to be respected whenever any guarantee of article 14 has been violated. However, as regards the right to have one's conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant is a lex specialis in relation to article 2, paragraph 3 when invoking the right to access a tribunal at the appeals level. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 1 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | This general comment replaces general comment No. 10 (nineteenth session). | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 5 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Taking account of the specific terms of article 19, paragraph 1, as well as the relationship of opinion and thought (article 18), a reservation to paragraph 1 would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, although freedom of opinion is not listed among those rights that may not be derogated from pursuant to the provisions of article 4 of the Covenant, it is recalled that, "in those provisions of the Covenant that are not listed in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements that in the Committee's opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4". Freedom of opinion is one such element, since it can never become necessary to derogate from it during a state of emergency. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 15 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | States parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 17 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | Issues concerning the media are discussed further in the section of this general comment that addresses restrictions on freedom of expression. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 36 | Aug 19, 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee reserves to itself an assessment of whether, in a given situation, there may have been circumstances which made a restriction of freedom of expression necessary. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the scope of this freedom is not to be assessed by reference to a "margin of appreciation" and in order for the Committee to carry out this function, a State party, in any given case, must demonstrate in specific fashion the precise nature of the threat to any of the enumerated grounds listed in paragraph 3 that has caused it to restrict freedom of expression. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 |