Consejos de búsqueda
ordenados por
30 listados de 136 Entidades
7 columns hidden
Título | Fecha de adición | Plantilla | Document | Paragraph text | Organismo | Tipo de documento | Thematics | Temas | Personas afectadas | Año |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Article 7: Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - replaces GC No. 7 1992, para. 1 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | This general comment replaces general comment No. 7 (the sixteenth session, 1982) reflecting and further developing it. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1992 | ||
Article 12: Freedom of movement 1999, para. 3 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | States parties should provide the Committee in their reports with the relevant domestic legal rules and administrative and judicial practices relating to the rights protected by this article, taking into account the issues discussed in this General Comment. They must also include information on remedies available if these rights are restricted. | 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. 1 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | This general comment replaces general comment No. 13 (twenty-first session). | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 6 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Taking account of the relationship of freedom of expression to the other rights in the Covenant, while reservations to particular elements of article 19, paragraph 2, may be acceptable, a general reservation to the rights set out in paragraph 2 would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 40: Reporting Obligations of States parties 2002, para. 1 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | States parties have undertaken to submit reports in accordance with article 40 of the Covenant within one year of its entry into force for the States parties concerned and, thereafter, whenever the Committee so requests. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2002 | ||
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 17 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | It is to be noted that failure by a State party to implement the Views of the Committee in a given case becomes a matter of public record through the publication of the Committee's decisions, inter alia, in its annual reports to the General Assembly. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2009 | ||
Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant - replaces GC No. 3 2004, para. 14 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The requirement under article 2, paragraph 2, to take steps to give effect to the Covenant rights is unqualified and of immediate effect. A failure to comply with this obligation cannot be justified by reference to political, social, cultural or economic considerations within the State. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2004 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 4 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Among the other articles that contain guarantees for freedom of opinion and/or expression, are articles 18, 17, 25 and 27. The freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights. For instance, freedom of expression is integral to the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and the exercise of the right to vote. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 5 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | While reservations to particular clauses of article 14 may be acceptable, a general reservation to the right to a fair trial would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 40: Reporting Obligations of States parties 2002, para. 2 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee notes, as appears from its annual reports, that only a small number of States have submitted their reports on time. Most of them have been submitted with delays ranging from a few months to several years and some States parties are still in default, despite repeated reminders by the Committee. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2002 | ||
Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial - replaces GC No. 13 2007, para. 46 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Article 14, paragraph 5 does not apply to procedures determining rights and obligations in a suit at law or any other procedure not being part of a criminal appeal process, such as constitutional motions. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2007 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 16 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | States parties should ensure that public broadcasting services operate in an independent manner. In this regard, States parties should guarantee their independence and editorial freedom. They should provide funding in a manner that does not undermine their independence. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 3 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 2: Implementation at the national level - replaced by GC No. 31 1981, para. 2 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | In this connection, it is very important that individuals should know what their rights under the Covenant (and the Optional Protocol, as the case may be) are and also that all administrative and judicial authorities should be aware of the obligations which the State party has assumed under the Covenant. To this end, the Covenant should be publicized in all official languages of the State and steps should be taken to familiarize the authorities concerned with its contents as part of their training. It is desirable also to give publicity to the State party’s cooperation with the Committee. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1981 | ||
Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression 1983, para. 4 | 19 de ago. de 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 | ||
Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant 1994, para. 4 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The possibility of entering reservations may encourage States which consider that they have difficulties in guaranteeing all the rights in the Covenant none the less to accept the generality of obligations in that instrument. Reservations may serve a useful function to enable States to adapt specific elements in their laws to the inherent rights of each person as articulated in the Covenant. However, it is desirable in principle that States accept the full range of obligations, because the human rights norms are the legal expression of the essential rights that every person is entitled to as a human being. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1994 | ||
Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant 1994, para. 11 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The Covenant consists not just of the specified rights, but of important supportive guarantees. These guarantees provide the necessary framework for securing the rights in the Covenant and are thus essential to its object and purpose. Some operate at the national level and some at the international level. Reservations designed to remove these guarantees are thus not acceptable. Thus, a State could not make a reservation to article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, indicating that it intends to provide no remedies for human rights violations. Guarantees such as these are an integral part of the structure of the Covenant and underpin its efficacy. The Covenant also envisages, for the better attainment of its stated objectives, a monitoring role for the Committee. Reservations that purport to evade that essential element in the design of the Covenant, which is also directed to securing the enjoyment of the rights, are also incompatible with its object and purpose. A State may not reserve the right not to present a report and have it considered by the Committee. The Committee's role under the Covenant, whether under article 40 or under the Optional Protocols, necessarily entails interpreting the provisions of the Covenant and the development of a jurisprudence. Accordingly, a reservation that rejects the Committee's competence to interpret the requirements of any provisions of the Covenant would also be contrary to the object and purpose of that treaty. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1994 | ||
Non-discrimination 1989, para. 9 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Reports of many States parties contain information regarding legislative as well as administrative measures and court decisions which relate to protection against discrimination in law, but they very often lack information which would reveal discrimination in fact. When reporting on articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant, States parties usually cite provisions of their constitution or equal opportunity laws with respect to equality of persons. While such information is of course useful, the Committee wishes to know if there remain any problems of discrimination in fact, which may be practised either by public authorities, by the community, or by private persons or bodies. The Committee wishes to be informed about legal provisions and administrative measures directed at diminishing or eliminating such discrimination. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1989 | ||
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 2 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Before a State moves to invoke article 4, two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The latter requirement is essential for the maintenance of the principles of legality and rule of law at times when they are most needed. When proclaiming a state of emergency with consequences that could entail derogation from any provision of the Covenant, States must act within their constitutional and other provisions of law that govern such proclamation and the exercise of emergency powers; it is the task of the Committee to monitor the laws in question with respect to whether they enable and secure compliance with article 4. In order that the Committee can perform its task, States parties to the Covenant should include in their reports submitted under article 40 sufficient and precise information about their law and practice in the field of emergency powers. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2001 | ||
Article 4: States of Emergency 2001, para. 9 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Furthermore, article 4, paragraph 1, requires that no measure derogating from the provisions of the Covenant may be inconsistent with the State party's other obligations under international law, particularly the rules of international humanitarian law. Article 4 of the Covenant cannot be read as justification for derogation from the Covenant if such derogation would entail a breach of the State's other international obligations, whether based on treaty or general international law. This is reflected also in article 5, paragraph 2, of the Covenant according to which there shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any fundamental rights recognized in other instruments on the pretext that the Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2001 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 5 | 19 de ago. de 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 | ||
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 18 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Some States parties, to which the Views of the Committee have been transmitted in relation to communications concerning them, have failed to accept the Committee's Views, in whole or in part, or have attempted to reopen the case. In a number of those cases, these responses have been made where the State party took no part in the procedure, having not carried out its obligation to respond to communications under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. In other cases, rejection of the Committee's Views, in whole or in part, has come after the State party has participated in the procedure and where its arguments have been fully considered by the Committee. In all such cases, the Committee regards dialogue between the Committee and the State party as ongoing with a view to implementation. The Special Rapporteur for the follow-up of Views conducts this dialogue, and regularly reports on progress to the Committee. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2009 | ||
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression 2011, para. 29 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The second legitimate ground is that of protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 2011 | ||
Article 1: The right to self-determination of peoples 1984, para. 7 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | In connection with article 1 of the Covenant, the Committee refers to other international instruments concerning the right of all peoples to self determination, in particular the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970 (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)). | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1984 | ||
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 2 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | In general, the reports of States parties fail to recognize that article 14 applies not only to procedures for the determination of criminal charges against individuals but also to procedures to determine their rights and obligations in a suit at law. Laws and practices dealing with these matters vary widely from State to State. This diversity makes it all the more necessary for States parties to provide all relevant information and to explain in greater detail how the concepts of "criminal charge" and "rights and obligations in a suit at law" are interpreted in relation to their respective legal systems. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1984 | ||
Article 14: Administration of justice 1984, para. 19 | 19 de ago. de 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 | ||
Non-discrimination 1989, para. 13 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | Finally, the Committee observes that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1989 | ||
Article 18: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1993, para. 1 | 19 de ago. de 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 | ||
Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant 1994, para. 5 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The Covenant neither prohibits reservations nor mentions any type of permitted reservation. The same is true of the first Optional Protocol. The Second Optional Protocol provides, in article 2, paragraph 1, that "No reservation is admissible to the present Protocol, except for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime". Paragraphs 2 and 3 provide for certain procedural obligations. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1994 | ||
Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant 1994, para. 10 | 19 de ago. de 2019 | Paragraph | The Committee has further examined whether categories of reservations may offend the "object and purpose" test. In particular, it falls for consideration as to whether reservations to the non-derogable provisions of the Covenant are compatible with its object and purpose. While there is no hierarchy of importance of rights under the Covenant, the operation of certain rights may not be suspended, even in times of national emergency. This underlines the great importance of non-derogable rights. But not all rights of profound importance, such as articles 9 and 27 of the Covenant, have in fact been made non-derogable. One reason for certain rights being made non-derogable is because their suspension is irrelevant to the legitimate control of the state of national emergency (for example, no imprisonment for debt, in article 11). Another reason is that derogation may indeed be impossible (as, for example, freedom of conscience). At the same time, some provisions are non-derogable exactly because without them there would be no rule of law. A reservation to the provisions of article 4 itself, which precisely stipulates the balance to be struck between the interests of the State and the rights of the individual in times of emergency, would fall in this category. And some non-derogable rights, which in any event cannot be reserved because of their status as peremptory norms, are also of this character - the prohibition of torture and arbitrary deprivation of life are examples. While there is no automatic correlation between reservations to non-derogable provisions, and reservations which offend against the object and purpose of the Covenant, a State has a heavy onus to justify such a reservation. | Human Rights Committee
| General Comment / Recommendation |
|
| 1994 |