I United Nations
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410502300306 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
I UNITED NATIONS
INEKE BOEREFIJN
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 83
RD
SESSION
The Human Rights Committee held its 83
rd
session from 14 March – 1 April 2005 in
New York.
Activities under the Reporting Procedure
The Committee considered reports submitted by Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Mauritius
and Uzbekistan. It examined the situation in Barbados in the absence of a report.
Further, the Committee decided to ask the Government of Sudan to submit a special
report by the end of the year on its compliance with Articles 6 (right to life), 7
(prohibition of torture), 8 (prohibition of slavery), 9 (right to liberty and security of
person), 12 (liberty of movement) and 26 (right to equality and non-discrimina-
tion).
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 ten communications inadmissible.
Below, a selection of the communications is included.
Communication No. 823/1998, Czernin vs Czech Republic, Views of 29 March 2005
(violation of Articles 14(1) and 2(3))
The main aspect of this case was the ineffectiveness of the remedies that were
available to the author, an issue which is covered by Article 2(3). Article 2 is
considered to be of an accessory character, and can be invoked only in combination
with one of the substantive rights laid down in Part III of the Covenant (Articles 6-
27). Issues relating to the return of property are ‘a suit at law’ and therefore fall
within the scope of Article 14(1), which guarantees, among others, the right to
equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by
a competent, impartial and independent tribunal.
On various occasions, the Committee has considered issues relating to the return
of confiscated property by the Czechoslovakian authorities after the Second World
War. In this case, the refusal of the Czech authorities to recognise the author’s
father’s Czechoslovak citizenship constituted an obstacle to the return of property.
Immediately after the war attempts for retention of citizenship had been made to no
avail, as well as after the regime change in Czechoslovakia. Despite decisions by
various administrative organs in the author’s father’s favour, the Ministry of the
Interior, which had to take a final decision, refused to take a decision. Following a
complaint for denial of justice, the Constitutional Court ordered the Ministry to
cease its continuing inaction which violated the author’s rights. The authorities then
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/3, 439-488, 2005.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 439
To continue reading
Request your trial