Human Rights Committee: Recent cases

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 105-116

  Joseph, Sarah ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844521600     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlrev/ngi005     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. CCPR/C/82/D/903/2000 (2004);
2. IHRR 309 (2005).
3. The author also made complaints about the fairness of his trial under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. These complaints were found to be inadmissible and are beyond the scope of this case note.
4. Supra n. 1 at para. 5.2.
5. Ibid. at para. 5.3.
6. Ibid. at paras 4.7-4.8.
7. Ibid. at para. 4.8.
8. Ibid. at para. 7.4.
9. General Comment 16 on the Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence and Protection of Honour and Reputation (Article 17), HRI/ GEN/1/Rev.6 at 140 (2003);
10. 1-2 IHRR 18 (1994) at para. 1.
11. Joseph, Schultz and Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Commentary and Materials, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at para. 16.11. Note, however, that the guarantee of lawfulness does require a law to be sufficiently circumscribed so as to precisely define when interferences with privacy may take place: See General Comment 16, ibid. at para. 8.
12. See also Pinkney v Canada (27/78), CCPR/C/14/D/27/1977 at para. 34.
13. Emphasis added.
14. See e.g. A v Australia (560/93), CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997);
15. 5 IHRR 78 (1998).
16. Ibid. at para. 9.5 (emphasis added).
17. This interpretation of Article 9(4) has been endorsed by the HRC majority in numerous subsequent cases involving mandatory detention in Australia.
18. See also Joseph, 'Human Rights Committee: Recent Cases', (2003) 3 Human Rights Law Review 91 at 96-7.
19. Note, however, that Article 9(4) nevertheless serves as a protection against incommunicado detention and disappearances. If one is held incommunicado, it is impossible to challenge one's detention before a court in person or to contact a lawyer to do so on one's behalf.
20. See Hammel v Madagascar (155/82), CCPR/C/29/D/155/1982 (1985).
21. Supra n. 1 at para. 7.6.
22. Ibid. at para. 7.7.
23. Ibid. at para. 7.8. The author had in fact disputed this contention, but had not substantiated that claim (see, in this respect, para. 6.5 of the decision). Given the HRC's reliance on this fact as an apparent justification for the State's action, it is perhaps arguable that the burden of proof in this respect should have lain with the State.
24. Ibid. at para. 7.9.
25. Ibid. at para. 3.8.
26. This is so even if there is an obligation to destroy tapped conversations that are irrelevant to the suspected offence that originally motivated the tap. The police must listen to a conversation before they can decide if it is or is not relevant.
27. CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001 (2004);
28. 12 IHRR 104 (2005).
29. Ibid. at para. 2.1.
30. Ibid. at para. 2.2.
31. Therefore, Madafferi had failed to exhaust legal remedies before submitting his complaint to the HRC in 2001. This fact would normally render his complaint inadmissible. However, the HRC will not dismiss a case for failure to exhaust local remedies if remedies are exhausted by the time of its admissibility decision.
32. Supra n. 22 at paras 5.3-5.5.
33. Ibid. at para. 5.3.
34. Ibid. at para. 5.9.
35. Other violations were also claimed, such as breaches of due process rights in Articles 13 and 14 of the ICCPR. Most of these other claims were inadmissible and are beyond the scope of this case note.
36. Supra n. 22 at para. 4.9.
37. Ibid. at para. 7.5.
38. Ibid. at para. 4.17.
39. Supra n. 12.
40. CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (2002);
41. 10 IHRR 364 (2003).
42. CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001 (2003);
43. 11 IHRR 159 (2004).
44. CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002 (2003);
45. 11 IHRR 315 (2004).
46. See Joseph, Schultz and Castan, supra n. 10 at para. 11.16.
47. Supra n. 22 at para. 9.2.
48. Ibid. at para. 9.3.
49. Ibid. at para. 9.7
50. Ibid. at para. 9.8.
51. CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000 (2001);
52. 8 IHRR 956 (2001).
53. On this case, see Joseph, 'Human Rights Committee: Recent Cases', (2001) 1 Human Rights Law Review 305 at 313-18,
54. and Burchill, 'The Right to Live Wherever You Want? The Right to Family Life Following the UN Human Rights Committee's Decision in Winata', (2003) 21 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 225.
55. CCPR/C/78/D/820/1998 (2003);
56. 11 IHRR 49 (2004).
57. Dissenting opinion of Ruth Wedgwood, ibid.
58. Supra n. 45.
59. The HRC found that the proposed deportation of C to Iran would breach Article 7.
60. See Joseph, supra n. 14 at 98-9.
61. CCPR/C/82/D/1222/2003 (2004);
62. 12 IHRR 326 (2005).
63. See e.g. the case extracts in Joseph, Schultz and Castan, supra n. 10 at para. 14.50.
64. See e.g. Hendriks v Netherlands (201/85), CCPR/C/33/D/201/1985 (1988), regarding a family court's decision over child custody, raising issues under Articles 23 and 24;
65. and Jonassen et al v Norway (942/00), CCPR/C/76/D/942/2000 (2002);
66. 10 IHRR 323 (2002), regarding indigenous land rights under Article 27.
67. Supra n. 50.
68. Ibid. at para. 2.2.
69. Ibid. at para. 3.1.
70. Ibid. at para. 11.9.
71. See also Stewart v Canada (538/93), CCPR/C/58/D/538/1993 (1996);
72. 4 IHRR 418 (1996)
73. and Canepa v Canada (558/93), CCPR/C/59/D/558/1993 (1997);
74. 5 IHRR 69 (1997).
75. Supra n. 50 at para. 6.3.
76. Ibid. at para. 11.4.
77. Dissenting opinion of Ruth Wedgwood and Maxwell Yalden.
78. See Joseph, supra n. 14 at 98-9.
79. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (2003);
80. 11 IHRR 125 (2004).
81. On Judge, see Joseph, 'Human Rights Committee: Recent Cases', (2004) 4 Human Rights Law Review 109 at 111-15.
82. Article 1 of CAT defines torture as, inter alia, 'severe pain or suffering ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity'.
83. See e.g. Rocha Chorlango v Sweden (218/02), CAT/C/33/D/218/2002 (2004), where the CAT found allegations of potential torture upon return to Ecuador by a nongovernment terrorist group to be inadmissible, as the source of the torture was not in any way linked to the Ecuadorian government.
84. See also Joseph, Schultz and Castan, supra n. 10 at paras 9.13-9.17 and 9.25.