I United Nations
| Published date | 01 March 1991 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419100900106 |
| Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Part C: Human Rights News |
NQHR 1/1991
PART C: HUMAN
RIGHTS
NEWS
IUNITED NATIONS·
A
Human
Rights Committee
Geneva, 22 October to 9November 1990
At
its 40th session held in Geneva from 22 October to 9 November 1990,
(for
the
39th session
see
NQHR
4/1990 at p. 403), the
Human
Rights
Committee
adopted
its final views
under
the Optional Protocol
(OP)
to the
Covenant on Civil
and
Political Rights in two Swedish cases
and
declared
10 communications inadmissible.
The
communications
otLindgrenet
al and Hjord et
al
v. Sweden (Nos.
298
and
299/1988) were decided jointly
and
concernedthe questionwhether
preferential
treatment
given to publicsector schoolingwith respect to social
benefits (free textbooks
and
schoolmeals) constituteddiscriminationagainst
pupils attending private schools such as the
Rudolf
Steiner School in
Norrkopingor
the
Ellen Key Schoolin Stockholm.
The
Committee decided
that
in view of
the
comprehensive public sector schooling in Sweden this
preferential
treatment
was reasonable
and
based
on
objective criteria.
Although aState party's responsibility
under
the Covenant also applies to
decisions
of
municipalities, adifferential
treatment
of private schools in
different municipalities was also found to be in conformity with Article 26
of
the
Covenant.
The
communication
of
the
Mauritian barrister L.G. (No. 354/1989) who
had
been
removed from
the
Role
of
Barristers after acriminal conviction
was declared inadmissible
on
different grounds. In
the
concurringopinions
of
6Committee members a
number
of legal issues
under
Article 14 paras
5
and
6
of
the
Covenant as well as
under
Articles 2
and
3
of
the
OP have
been
raised.
The
communications
of
R.LA.
Jv.
v. The Netherlands (No. 372/1989)
which had
been
declared inadmissible already by the
European
Commission
of
Human
Rights in 1988 was rejected as
not
having
been
sufficiently
substantiated within
the
meaning
of
Article 2 OP.
The
author's
claim
that
his conviction
ofrape
by
Dutch
courts
had
violated
the
principle
of
equality
•Manfred Nowak
62
To continue reading
Request your trial