The U.N. Human Rights Committee

Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law

Volumn 5, Issue , 2001, Pages 341-398

  Buergenthal, Thomas ^a  

^a Max Planck UNYB

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85181007798     PISSN: 13894633     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (168)

1. See generally R. Wolfrum, "The Committee on the Elimantion of Racial Discrimination,* Max Planck UNYB 3 (1999), 489 et seq.
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose entry into force gave birth to the Committee, guarantees a comprehensive catalogue of civil and political rights. The other United Nations treaty bodies have a more limited jurisdiction, dealing as they do with racial discrimination, rights of children or women, and torture. The Committee on Economic and Social Rights, which administers the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and whose jurisdiction within its sphere of competence matches that of the Human Rights Committee, is not a treaty body. It was established by a resolution of the ECOSOC.
3. Symptomatic of Cold War paranoia is the fact that the same states (the Soviet bloc and many so-called non-aligned nations), which supported a mandatory inter-State complaint mechanism and a reference of disputes to the ICJ as well as an optional individual petition system for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, strongly opposed the inclusion in the Covenant of the very same mechanisms. See A.H. Robertson, "The Implementation System: International Measures," in: L. Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1981, 332 et seq., (336).
4. Human Rights Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 51, where the Committee, in a footnote to that provision, agreed "that its method of work normally should allow for attempts to reach decisions by consensus before voting."
5. aThe Reporting System under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," in: E. Klein (ed.), The Monitoring System of Human Rights Treaty Obligations, 1998.
6. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter cited as Covenant), article 49 para. 2.
7. Pursuant to article 9 para. 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter cited as Optional Protocol or Protocol) ten ratifications were required to bring that instrument into force subject to the entry into effect of the Covenant.
8. Covenant, article 1 paras 1 and 2.
9. For an analysis and legislative history of these provisions, M.J. Bossuyt, Guide to the "Travaux Preparatoires* of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right, 1987; M. Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, 1993.
10. Covenant, article 2 para. 1 and article 3.
11. Covenant, article 4.
12. Covenant, article 28.
13. Covenant, article 31 para. 2.
14. Covenant, article 32 para. 1 and article 29 para. 3.
15. 15 Covenant, article 40 para. 1.
16. 16 Covenant, arts 41 and 42.
17. 17 Optional Protocol, article 1.
18. 18 On this subject generally see I. Boerefijn, The Reporting Procedure under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1999.
19. aThe International Measures of Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Optional Protocol," Tex. IntH L. /. 12 (1977), 141 et seq., (142).
20. Robertson, see note 3.
21. Covenant, article 40 para. 2.
22. Covenant, article 40 para. 4.
23. Covenant, article 40 para. 1 lit.(a) and (b).
24. On the rather ambiguous nature of the legislative history of article 40 para.
25. 4, see Nowak, see note 9, 568-571.
26. For the summary records of the debate, see (1979-1980) Yearbook of the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter cited Yearbook HRC\ Vol. 1,397 et seq. For a summary of the debate, see (1979-1980) Report of the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter cited HRC Report), GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/35/40), 83-87 (1980).
27. 27 HRC Report, see above, 85.
28. 28 Id.
29. 29 Id., 86. See also B. Graefrath, "The Reporting and Complaint Systems in Universal Human Rights Treaties," in: A. Rosas/ J. Helgesen (eds), Human Rights in a Changing East/West Perspective, 1990,290.
30. 30 (1983-1984) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/39/40), 10-12 (1984).
31. 31 In 1994, the Committee decided to discontinue summarizing the discussions of the Committee's review of State reports after it had already decided in 1992 to substitute the Committee's "Concluding Observations" for these summaries, (1993-1994) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/49/40), 9,12 (1994).
32. 32 (1991-1992) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/47/40), 3 (1994). This decision was formalized by the Committee at its next session. Id., 4.
33. 33 See e.g. (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 22 et seq. (2000), for examples of these final observations.
34. 34 For a useful analysis of this "jurisprudence," see S. Joseph, "New Procedures Concerning the Human Rights Committee's Examination of State Reports," NQHR 13 (1995), 5 et seq., (8-12). See also E. Tistounet, "Amelioration des procedures conventionnelles des Nations Unies en matiere de droits de l'homme," RUDH 5 (1993), 145 et seq.
35. 35 Covenant, article 40 para. 3.
36. 36 (1978) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/33/40), 105 (1978).
37. 37 (1979-1980) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/35/40), 86-87 (1980).
38. 38 The pre-sessional working group usually meets one week before each session of the Committee to make the necessary preparations for the review of the State reports due to be considered at that session. Now it also prepares the draft list of issues for the succeeding session.
39. 39 (1994-1995) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40, (Doc. A/5 0/40), 17 (1995).
40. 40 D. McGoldrick, The Human Rights Committee, 1994, 77-79.
41. u Current Development and Approaches in the Practice of the Human Rights Committee in Consideration of State Reports,** in: A. Eide/ J. Helgesen (eds), The Future of Human Rights Protection in a World of Change: Essays in Honour ofTorkel Opsahl, 1991, 51 et seq., (57-58). Covenant, article 40 para. 1 lit.(b).
42. For the latest version, see Consolidated Guidelines for States Parties' Reports Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (hereafter cited as Consolidated Guidelines), (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 112-17 (2000).
43. 44 Id., 16.
44. 45 See T. Buergenthal, "Implementing the UN Racial Convention," Tex. Int'l L. J. 12 (1977), 187 et seq., (199-201), which describes the evolution of this practice in CERD.
45. 46 (1977) HRCReport, GAOR, Suppl. No. 44 (Doc. A/32/44), 10 (1977).
46. 47 Compare Rule 68 of the 1977 Rules of Procedure, ibid., 60, with the same provision in the current Rules of Procedure.
47. 48 Nowak, see note 9, 563, who reports that in dealing with the one State - Guinea - which had sent no representative, the Committee postponed taking up that country's report until a representative eventually appeared. The Committee took the same position in 1995, when the representative of Afghanistan failed to reach Geneva in time to present his country's report.
48. 49 "Document Submitted by the Human Rights Committee to the [Vienna] World Conference on Human Rights," (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Part 1, Annex X, 218 et seq., (220-21) (1993). By September 1998 the number of delinquent States parties had climbed to 86, almost two thirds of all States parties, (1987-1998) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/53/40), 10 (1998). For a comprehensive up-to-date list, see "Recent Reporting History Under the Principal International Human Rights Instruments,** Doc. HRI/GEN/4/ Rev.l (2001).
49. (i999«2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 19-20 (2000).
50. 51 See generally, J. Connors, "An Analysis and Evaluation of State Reporting,** in: A. Bayefsky (ed.), The UN Human Rights Treaty System in the 21st Century, 2000, 3.
51. 52 (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 20 (2000).
52. 53 See Consolidated Guidelines, see note 43.
53. 54 (1990-1991) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/46/40), 10 (1991).
54. 55 The amendment added a new paragraph 2 to Rule 66 of its Rules of Procedure. This paragraph reads as follows: "Requests for submission of a report under article 40, paragraph 1 (b), of the Covenant may be made in accordance with the periodicity decided by the Committee or at any time the Committee may deem appropriate. In the case of an exceptional situation when the Committee is not in session, a request may be made through the Chairman, acting in consultation with the members of the Committee."
55. Id., 9.
56. For a useful analysis, see I. Boerefijn, "Towards a Strong System of Supervision: The Human Rights Committee's Role in Reforming the Reporting Procedure under Article 40 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," HRQ 17 (1995), 766 et seq., (776-782); Boerefijn, see note 18.
57. 58 (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Vol. 1, 15 (1993). Here it should be emphasized that the principle underlying the Committee's decisions relating to the former Soviet republics and to the former Yugoslavia apply with equal force to article 41 declarations (interstate communications) and the Optional Protocol (individual communications). For the time being, however, this issue has arisen only in the context of State reports.
58. 59 Id., 14. This finding did not apply to the Ukraine and Belarus, which had been UN Member States prior to the break up of the Soviet Union, nor to the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) whose incorporation into the Soviet Union was not recognized by the international community. The latter states subsequently acceded to the Covenant.
59. 60 Statement by the Chairperson on Behalf of the Human Rights Committee Relating to the Consideration of the Part of the Fourth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom Relating to Hong Kong, Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.57, page 6 (1995). The Committee reaffirmed this position in its Concluding Observations to the 1996 Report of the United Kingdom relating to Hong Kong, Doc. CCPRX/79/Add.69 (1996).
60. 61 Section 156 of Annex 1 to the Sino-U.K. Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, which entered into force on 27 May 1985, and reads as follows: "The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force."
61. 62 (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 40 (2000).
62. 63 Statement of the Chairperson, see note 60, 6. See also, Concluding Observations on the 1996 United Kingdom Report on Hong Kong, Doc. CCPR/C/Add.69 (1996).
63. 64 General Comment No. 26 (Continuity of Obligations), by the Human Rights Committee, adopted on 29 October 1997, reproduced in: * Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies," Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.5 of 26 April 2001, page 163.
64. 65 For the full text of General Comment No. 26, see above.
65. (1999-2OOO) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 100, footnote 3 (2000).
66. 67 Report of the UN Secretary-General on Succession of States in Respect of International Human Rights Treaties, Doc. E/CN.4/1996/76, page 3 (1996).
67. 68 UN Human Rights Commission, Res. 1995/18 (1995).
68. 69 Doc. E/CN.4/1996/76 (1996).
69. 70 Id., 5 et seq. It is worth noting too that the Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, Doc. SL/LEG/8 (1994), provides no clear answer to the question raised above and contains no special section on human rights treaties.
70. aCompilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by the Human Rights Treaty Bodies," Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.5, page 182 of 26 April 2001.
71. For an analysis of these provisions, Nowak, see note 9, 580 et seq.; Schwelb, see note 19,160; Robertson, see note 3,351.
72. See Human Rights Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rules 72-77 E.
73. 74 (1978-1979) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/34/40), 9 (1979).
74. 75 Covenant, article 41 para. 1 lit.(c).
75. 76 Covenant, article 41 para. 1 lit.(e).
76. 77 Covenant, article 41 para. 1 lit.(h)(i).
77. Covenant, article 45.
78. Covenant, article 42 para. 7 lit.(c).
79. On the relevant jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, see Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of 24 September 1982 ("Other Treaties** Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of 1 October 1999 ("The Right to Consular Information*). On the relationship between article 44 and the European Convention on Human Rights, see Nowak, see note 9,619.
80. See generally M. Schmidt, "The UN Human Rights Committee: Process and Progress," Human Rights Forum (Philippines) 5 (1995), 31; McGoldrick, see note 5, 120; R. Higgins, "Admissibility under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Canadian Human Rights Yearbook 1992, 57 et seq., (58); J. Moller, "Recent Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee,* ibid., 79; A. De Zayas et al., "The Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under the Optional Protocol by the Human Rights Committee," GY1L 28 (1985), 9 et seq.
81. Optional Protocol, article 3.
82. Optional Protocol, article 5 para. 2 lit.(a).
83. Optional Protocol, article 5 paras 1 and 3.
84. Optional Protocol, article 5 para. 4.
85. 86 See Rules of Procedure, Rule 91.
86. 87 See Rules of Procedure, Rules 87 to 92.
87. 88 See Rules of Procedure, Rule 92.
88. 89 See Rules of Procedure, Rule 87 para. 2.
89. 90 See Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on New Communications, (1990-1991) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/46/40), 218 (1991).
90. 91 (1988-1989) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/44/40), para. 619-620 (1989).
91. Rules of Procedure, Rule 91 para. 2.
92. See Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on New Communications, see note 90,218.
93. Subparagraph (b) of the Special Rapporteur's Mandate, see note 90, which declares that the Special Rapporteur shall have the following mandate: " ... (b)To issue rule 86 requests, whether coupled with a request under rule 91 or not."
94. See Rules of Procedure, Rules 93 and 94, which apply to the examination of the merits of a communication.
95. Rules of Procedure, Rule 91.
96. 97 Rules of Procedure, Rule 91 para. 3.
97. 98 On the Committee's practice, see P. Ghandi, The Human Rights Committee and the Right of Individual Communication: Law and Practice^ 1998.
98. 99 Rules of Procedure, Rule 93 para. 4.
99. 100 On the issue of confidentiality, see Rules of Procedure, Rules 96-97. Rule 96 as adopted at the 1585th Mtg. of the Committee on 10 April 1997, replaces old rules 96, 97 and 98 which reflected a relatively strict secrecy regime.
100. 101 Rules of Procedure, Rule 96 para. 5.
101. 102 Rule 96 paras 1-3. Rule 96 para. 3 provides in part: "However, the Committee, the Working Group ... or the Special Rapporteur ... may, as deemed appropriate, request the author of a communication or the State party concerned to keep confidential the whole or part of any such submissions or information." And Rule 96 para. 4 provides: "When a decision has been taken on the confidentiality pursuant to paragraph 3 above, the Committee, the Working Group ... or the Special Rapporteur ... may decide that all or part of the submissions and other information, such as the identity of the author, may remain confidential after the Committee's decision on inadmissibility, merits or discontinuance has been adopted."
102. 103 Rules of Procedure, Rule 96 para. 5.
103. 104 Optional Protocol, article 5 para. 3.
104. 105 Optional Protocol, article 5 para. 4.
105. 106 (1979) HRCReport, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/34/40), 124 (1979).
106. 107 All of these decisions are now published in volume two of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly as well as in the Yearbook of the Human Rights Committee. To date, the Committee has also published two volumes of decisions under the title of "Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol," Vol. I (1985), Vol. II (1990), the former covering sessions two through sixteen, the latter seventeen through thirty-two. Volume III in this series is in the process of being edited.
107. 108 See note 102.
108. 109 For the Committee's practice, see M. Schmidt, Tollow-up Mechanisms Before UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and the UN Mechanism and Beyond," in: Bayefsky, see note 51,233.
109. 110 See "Measures adopted at the thirty-ninth session of the Human Rights Committee to monitor compliance with its views under article 5, paragraph 4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," (1989-1990) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40, (Doc. A/45/40), Vol. 11,205 (1990). See also Tollow-up on Views adopted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Documents Submitted by the Human Rights Committee to the World Conference on Human Rights, reprinted in: (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl.No. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Annex X, 222 (1993). The mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Follow-up can be found in the Committee's Rules of Procedure, Rule 95. See M. Schmidt, "The UN Human Rights Committee: Process and Progress," Human Rights Forum (Philippines) 5 (1995), 31 et seq., (44); A. de Zayas, "The Follow-Up Procedure of the UN Human Rights Committee," Review of the Int'l Comm. Jurists, 47 (1991), 28 et seq.
110. 111 (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Annex X, 224 (1993).
111. 112 (1994-1995) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/50/40), 99 (1995).
112. 113 In 1996, a "blacklist" of uncooperative states was for the first time included in the follow-up chapter of the Committee's annual report. However inadequate staff resources precluded systematic follow-up consultations in the Committees 62nd and 63rd sessions, with the result that no "blacklist" could be included. (1998) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/53/40), 72 and 79 (1998). For the current list, see (1999-2000) HRC Report GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 90 (2000).
113. 114 (1994-1995) HRC Report GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/50/40), 100 (1995).
114. 115 Id., 101.
115. 116 Id.
116. (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 90 (2000).
117. 118 On this subject generally, see C. Tomuschat, "Making Individual Communications an Effective Tool for the Protection of Human Rights," in: U. Beyerlin et al., Recht zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung, Festschrift fur Rudolf Bernhardt, 1995, 615 et seq.
118. 119 (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Vol. II, Annex X, 225 (1993).
119. A. Viana Acosta v, Uruguay, Co mm. No. 110/1981,2 Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol (hereinafter cited as Selected Decisions), 148, at para. 6 (1990). Cf. E.M.E.E v. France, Comm. No. 409/1990, (1990-1991) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/46/40), 318 (1991).
120. Lichtensztejn v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 77/1980, 2 Selected Decisions 102, 104.
121. y Comm. No. 52/1979, 1 Selected Decisions 88, para. 2.1 (1985).
122. Id. at para. 12.2. With reference to article 2 para. 1 of the Covenant, the Committee emphasized that provisions should not be read to "imply that the State party concerned cannot be held accountable for violations of rights which its agents commit upon the territory of another State, whether with the acquiescence of the Government of that State or in opposition to it." Id. at para. 12.3. See also the Individual Opinion in that case by C. Tomuschat, who explained the legislative history of article 2 para. 1. On this subject generally, see T. Meron, "Extraterritoriality of Human Rights Treaties," AJIL 89 (1995), 78 et seq.; T. Buergenthal, "To Respect and to Ensure: State Obligations and Permissible Derogations," in: Henkin, see note 3, 72 et seq., (73). The Committee very strongly reaffirmed the views it expressed in the Lopez Burgos case in its Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of the United States of America, (1994-1995) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/50/40), Vol. I, 52, para. 284 (1995).
123. 124 Rules of Procedure, Rule 90 lit.(b). But see A.B. v. Italy, Comm. No. 565/1993, (1993-1994) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/49/40), Vol. II, 360 (1994), where the author failed to provide proof that he was authorized to act on behalf of the alleged victim, resulting in the inadmissibility of the communication.
124. 125 S.M. v. Barbados, Comm. 502/1992, (1993-1994) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40, (Doc. A/49/40), Vol. II, 318 (1994); A Group of Associations v. Italy, Comm. No. 163/1984, (1983-1984) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/39/40), 197 (1994).
125. 126 E.W. v. The Netherlands, Comm. No. 429/1990, (1992-1993) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/48/40), Vol. II, 198, para. 6.4 (1993).
126. 127 Hopu and Bessert v. France, Comm. No. 549/1993, (Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993) Rev.l of 29 December 1997.
127. 128 European Convention on Human Rights, article 35 para. 3; American Convention on Human Rights, article 47.
128. 129 (1989-1990) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/45/40), Vol. I, 135 (1990).
129. (1994-1995) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/50/40), Vol. I, 85 (1995).
130. 131 See the summary of cases described in (1991-1992) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40, (Doc. A/47/40), 149-50 (1992).
131. 132 See e.g., S.E. v. Argentina, Comm. No. 275/1988, (1989-1990) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. 40 (Doc. A/45/40), Vol. II, 159 (1990). Here it should be noted that the Committee has consistently taken the position that it has jurisdiction under the Optional Protocol only with regard to violations of the Covenant taking place after the state in question has ratified the Protocol. While one may question the legal soundness of this conclusion, it is probably no longer open to challenge.
132. 133 IS. v. Hungary, Comm. No. 389/1989, (1989-1990) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40, (Doc. A/46/40), 316 (1990). See also the cases described in (1991-1992) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/47/40), 150-51 (1992), which seem to involve determinations of no prima facie violations.
133. 134 JJ.C. v. Canada, Comm. No.367/1989, (1991-1992) HRCReport, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/47/40), 372, para. 5.2 (1992). See also Z.R v. Canada, Comm. No. 341/1988, (1990-1991) HRCReport, GAOR, Suppl., No. 40 (Doc. A/46/40), 302, para. 5.5 (1991).
134. 135 See e.g., Polay Campos v. Pern, Comm. No. 577/1994. CCPR/C/61/D/577/1994 of 9 January 1998. The Committee found the communication to be admissible in 1996, although it had been filed in 1992 with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Committee's conclusion was facilitated by the Inter-American Commission's statement that it "had no plans to prepare a report on the case within the next 12 months."
135. 136 Isidora Barroso v. Panama, Comm. No. 473/1991, reprinted in Doc. CCPR/C3 7/WP. 1, 46 (1996).
136. 137 A. et al v. State 5, Comm. No. 1/1976, 1 Selected Decisions 17 (1985). It should be noted, in this connection, that the "procedures for international investigation or settlement** to which this provision refers embrace not only international human rights procedures; its language indicates that it would apply also to international judicial or arbitral proceedings instituted, for example, on the individual's behalf by the state of his/her nationality, provided this was done with the individual's consent.
137. 138 Id.
138. 139 On this subject, see Duilio Fanali v. Italy, Comm. 75/1980, 2 Selected Decisions 99, para. 72 (1990). For earlier cases, see (1983-1984) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/39/40), 115-16 (1984).
139. 140 AM v. Denmark, Comm. No. 121/1982, (1981-1982) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/37/40), 212 (1982).
140. 141 Id., 214.
141. 142 Thierry Trebutien v. France, Comm. No. 421/1990, (1993-1994) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/49/40), Vol. II, 250 (1994).
142. yf Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 4/1977, 1 Selected Decisions 4, para. (b).
143. 144 A. Peart & G. Peart v. Jamaica, Comm. Nos. 464 & 482/ 1991, Doc. CCM/C37/WPA, 36 (1996).
144. 145 Comm. No. 845, (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40) Part II, 258 (2000).
145. 146 Id., 263.
146. 147 Id., 266.
147. 148 Id. Four Committee members joined in a separate dissenting opinion, rejecting the Committee's assertion of jurisdiction.
148. 149 Id., 268.
149. 150 For the reasons that motivated some of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries to take this action, see N. Schiffrin, "Jamaica Withdraws the Right of Individual Petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," AJIL 92 (1998), 563 et seq.
150. On this subject, see discussion regarding General Comment No. 26, see note 64,27-29.
151. See generally Opsahl, see note 5,407-12; McGoldrick, see note 5, 92-96.
152. 153 (1980-1981) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/36/40), 101-102 (1981). For a summary of the discussion relating to the adoption of these guidelines, see id., 81-84.
153. 154 For a compilation of the Committee's general comments, see Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, see note 64, at 110.
154. If States parties wished to have an input into the drafting process of general comments, they could do so in a number of ways. Since the draft general comments are public documents, states have access to them and could express their views on the subject in an official communication to the Committee chair. They also have access to the Committee's annual report and summary records, which track the Committee's discussion of the contents of the general comment. Since the drafting process usually takes at least two years, there is time for states to react to proposed interpretations or to advance their own.
155. 156 See McGoldrick, see note 5, 94.
156. 157 The United States and United Kingdom observations are reprinted in (1994-1995) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/50/40), Vol. I, 131 and 135, respectively (1995). For the observations of the French Government, see (1995-1996) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/51/40), (1996) (not as yet published).
157. 158 General Comment No. 24 is reproduced in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, see note 64,150.
158. 159 The ILC also took up the matter and adopted a statement that appeared to reject some of the propositions enunciated by the Committee. See International Law Commission, "Preliminary Conclusions of the International Law Commission on Reservations to Normative Multilateral Treaties Including Human Rights Treaties, * Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Ninth Session, GAOR, Suppl. No. 10 (Doc. A/52/10), 126 (1997). For a discussion of the controversy engendered by General Comment No. 24, see B. Simma, "Reservations to Human Rights Treaties - Some Recent Developments," in: G. Hafner et al. (eds), Liber Amicorum Professor I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, 1998,659 et seq.; see also R. Higgins, "Introduction,** in: J. Gardner (ed.), Human Rights as General Norms and a State's Right to Opt Out: Reservations and Objections to Human Rights Conventions XV, 1997, for a critical analysis of the British, French and US objections to the General Comment.
159. 160 For the Chairman's Statement, see Doc. CCPR/C/SR/ 1406 of 31 March 1995.
160. For example, it is interesting to note that in its examination of the initial report of the United States and its Concluding Observations thereon, the Committee made only a passing reference to General Comment No. 24 without formally relying on it.
161. Here it should be noted that by February 1999, a total of 1143 State reports were overdue under the six existing State reporting procedures of the UN. See generally Bayefsky, see note 51.
162. D. Kretzmer, "The Human Rights Committee, * in: Bayefsky, see note 51, 163.
163. (1999-2000) HRC Report, GAOR, Suppl. No. 40 (Doc. A/55/40), 16 (2000).
164. 165 For suggestions calling for a more differentiated and selective approach to individual communications, see H. Steiner, "Individual Claims in a World of Massive Violations: What Role for the Human Rights Committee,'' in: P.
165. Alston/ J. Crawford, The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, 2001,15etseq.
166. For example, an important step towards co-ordination involves the decision to hold the Meetings of the Chairpersons of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies concurrently with meetings of the Special Rapporteurs and Chairpersons of the Working Groups of the Commission on Human Rights.
167. Article 5 para. 4 of the Optional Protocol declares that "the Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual. *
168. See T. Buergenthal, "A Court and Two Consolidated Treaty Bodies," in: Bayefsky, see note 51, 299.