I United Nations
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410902700205 |
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human Ri ghts, Vol. 27/2, 237–290, 2009.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 237
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
I UNITED NATIONS
I B*
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 94TH SESSION
e Human Rights Committee held its 94th session from 13–31 October 2008 in
Geneva.
Activities under the Repor ting Procedure
e Committee considered reports from Denmark, Japan, Monaco, Nicaragua and
Spain. It adopted a general comment on the obligations of States parties under the
Optional Protocol (OP) to the Covenant, and announced t hat its next general comment
would deal with t he right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Covenant.
In its 33rd general comment, entitled ‘ e Obligations of States Part ies under the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, the
Committee commented on the Protocol’s provisions. It stressed that Article 1 OP
implies that States par ties were obliged not to hinder access to the Committe e and to
prevent any retaliatory measu res against any person who addressed a com munication
to the Committee. e general comment devoted quite some attention to the status
of the views. e Committee recalled that its function was not, as such, that of a
judicial body, but that its views exhibited some i mportant characteristics of a judicial
decision. It observed that the Views represented a n authoritative determination by the
organ established under the Covenant itself charged with the interpretation of that
instrument. It noted that t he views derived their character, and the impor tance which
attaches to them, from the integral role of the Committee under both the Covenant
and the Optional Protocol. It also referred to States parties’ obligations to a ord an
e ective and enforceable remedy (Article 2(3) of the Covenant), and to act in good
faith in implementing treaty obligations. e general comment described the steps
taken by the Committee to enhance the implementation of its views, and concluded
* Professor of gender and law, Maast richt University, Maast richt; and asso ciate professor, Netherland s
Institute of Huma n Rights (SIM), Utrecht School of L aw, the Netherlands.
To continue reading
Request your trial