I United Nations
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410502300405 |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
I UNITED NATIONS
INEKE BOEREFIJN
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 84
TH
SESSION
The Human Rights Committee held its 84
th
session from 11-29 July 2005 in Geneva.
Activities under the Reporting Procedure
The Committee considered reports submitted by Slovenia, Syria, Tajikistan,
Thailand and Yemen. It continued its work on a general comment on equality
before the courts (Article 14).
Activities under the Individual Complaints Procedure
Under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, the Committee adopted nine Views,
finding violations in seven. Further, it declared 20 communications inadmissible.
Below, a selection of the communications is included.
Communication No. 968/2001, Jong-Cheol vs Republic of Korea, Views of 27 July 2005 (no
violation of Article 19(2))
In view of the fact that an unusually high number of dissenting opinions (seven) is
appended to this case, it appears that it has given rise to much discussion in the
Committee. The case concerned the Korean Election for Public Office and Election
Malpractice Prevention Act, which prohibits publication of public opinion polls
during the electoral campaign period. The Presidential campaign period lasts 23
days. Disclosing political opinion polls during this period gives rise to criminal
liability. The author of the communication, a journalist, had been sentenced to a
fine on the basis of this Act.
After having established that the author was exercising his right to impart
information within the meaning of Article 19(2), and that the restriction imposed
was provided by law, the Committee examined whether the other criteria mentioned
in Article 19(3) were met. The State party had submitted that the restriction was
justified in terms of the protection of public order. According to the Committee the
restriction could also fall within the terms of Article 19(3)(a), restrictions necessary
to protect the rights of others, insofar as it aimed to protect the rights of the
Presidential candidates. It noted that the underlying reason for the restriction was
the wish to provide the electorate with a period of reflection. It also referred to the
historical specificities of the democratic processes of the State party. It concluded
that a law restricting publication of opinion polls for a limited time was not ipso facto
outside the aims contemplated in Article 19(3). With respect to the question of
proportionality, the Committee found that the author’s conviction was not excessive
in the context of the conditions in the State party. It found that the sanction was not
excessively harsh. It therefore concluded that the law was not disproportionate to its
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/4, 637-661, 2005.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 637
To continue reading
Request your trial