Search Tips
sorted by
10 shown of 10 entities
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- The term used in article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to describe the decisions of the Committee is "Views". These decisions state the Committee's findings on the violations alleged by the author of a communication and, where a violation has been found, state a remedy for that violation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- In responding to a communication that appears to relate to a matter arising before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party (the ratione temporis rule), the State party should invoke that circumstance explicitly, including any comment on the possible "continuing effect" of a past violation.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Article 2 of the Optional Protocol requires that individuals who submit communications to the Committee must have exhausted all available domestic remedies. In its response to a communication, a State party, where it considers that this condition has not been met, should specify the available and effective remedies that the author of the communication has failed to exhaust.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- Although the Optional Protocol is organically related to the Covenant, it is not automatically in force for all States parties to the Covenant. Article 8 of the Optional Protocol provides that States parties to the Covenant may become parties to the Optional Protocol only by a separate expression of consent to be bound. A majority of States parties to the Covenant have also become parties to the Optional Protocol.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Measures may be requested by an author, or decided by the Committee on its own initiative, when an action taken or threatened by the State party would appear likely to cause irreparable harm to the author or the victim unless withdrawn or suspended pending full consideration of the communication by the Committee. Examples include the imposition of the death penalty and violation of the duty of non-refoulement. In order to be in a position to meet these needs under the Optional Protocol, the Committee established, under its rules of procedure, a procedure to request interim or provisional measures of protection in appropriate cases. Failure to implement such interim or provisional measures is incompatible with the obligation to respect in good faith the procedure of individual communication established under the Optional Protocol.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Although not a term found in the Optional Protocol or the Covenant, the Human Rights Committee uses the description "author" to refer to an individual who has submitted a communication to the Committee under the Optional Protocol. The Committee uses the term "communication" contained in article 1 of the Optional Protocol instead of terms such as "complaint" or "petition", although the latter term is reflected in the current administrative structure of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, where communications under the Optional Protocol are initially handled by a section known as the Petitions Team.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- Article 1 of the Optional Protocol provides that a State party to the Optional Protocol "recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant". It follows that States parties are obliged not to hinder access to the Committee and must prevent any retaliatory measures against any person who has submitted a communication to the Committee.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2009, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- The preamble to the Optional Protocol states that its purpose is "further to achieve the purposes" of the Covenant by enabling the Human Rights Committee, established in Part IV of the Covenant, "to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant". The Optional Protocol sets out a procedure, and imposes obligations on States parties to the Optional Protocol arising out of that procedure, in addition to their obligations under the Covenant.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2009
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
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. 14
- Paragraph text
- The Committee considers that reservations relating to the required procedures under the first Optional Protocol would not be compatible with its object and purpose. The Committee must control its own procedures as specified by the Optional Protocol and its rules of procedure. Reservations have, however, purported to limit the competence of the Committee to acts and events occurring after entry into force for the State concerned of the first Optional Protocol. In the view of the Committee this is not a reservation but, most usually, a statement consistent with its normal competence ratione temporis. At the same time, the Committee has insisted upon its competence, even in the face of such statements or observations, when events or acts occurring before the date of entry into force of the first Optional Protocol have continued to have an effect on the rights of a victim subsequent to that date. Reservations have been entered which effectively add an additional ground of inadmissibility under article 5, paragraph 2, by precluding examination of a communication when the same matter has already been examined by another comparable procedure. In so far as the most basic obligation has been to secure independent third party review of the human rights of individuals, the Committee has, where the legal right and the subject-matter are identical under the Covenant and under another international instrument, viewed such a reservation as not violating the object and purpose of the first Optional Protocol.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 1994
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
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. 13
- Paragraph text
- The issue arises as to whether reservations are permissible under the first Optional Protocol and, if so, whether any such reservation might be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant or of the first Optional Protocol itself. It is clear that the first Optional Protocol is itself an international treaty, distinct from the Covenant but closely related to it. Its object and purpose is to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of any of the rights in the Covenant. States accept the substantive rights of individuals by reference to the Covenant, and not the first Optional Protocol. The function of the first Optional Protocol is to allow claims in respect of those rights to be tested before the Committee. Accordingly, a reservation to an obligation of a State to respect and ensure a right contained in the Covenant, made under the first Optional Protocol when it has not previously been made in respect of the same rights under the Covenant, does not affect the State's duty to comply with its substantive obligation. A reservation cannot be made to the Covenant through the vehicle of the Optional Protocol but such a reservation would operate to ensure that the State's compliance with that obligation may not be tested by the Committee under the first Optional Protocol. And because the object and purpose of the first Optional Protocol is to allow the rights obligatory for a State under the Covenant to be tested before the Committee, a reservation that seeks to preclude this would be contrary to the object and purpose of the first Optional Protocol, even if not of the Covenant. A reservation to a substantive obligation made for the first time under the first Optional Protocol would seem to reflect an intention by the State concerned to prevent the Committee from expressing its views relating to a particular article of the Covenant in an individual case.
- Body
- Human Rights Committee
- Document type
- General Comment / Recommendation
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 1994
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
10 shown of 10 entities