I United Nations
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934419301100406 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Part
B:
Human
Rights News
IUNITED NATIONS'"
A. Human Rights Committee
New York, 22 March -8April 1993
During its 47th session, held at New York from 22 March to 8 April 1993, the Human
Rights Committee decided on 15 individual communications submitted under the first
Optional Protocol (OP) to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).
In
8 cases
concerning Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Canada it found a violation of one or more
provisions of the Covenant, in 2final views concerning Jamaica it found no violation, and
5 communications (against Australia, Hungary, Jamaica and the Netherlands) were
declared inadmissible.
Most cases concern the application of capital punishment in Jamaica. Since Jamaica
had not ratified the second OP to the Covenant, death sentences as such are not
prohibited. However, the Committee, like in earlier cases, strictly scrutinizes the criminal
proceedings leading to a death sentence (for earlier jurisprudence see Nowak, CCPR-
Commentary (Kehl/Strasbourg/Arlington 1993). In the cases of John Campbell (No.
307/1988), Leaford Smith (No. 282/1988), Victor Francis (No. 320/1988), and Trevor
Collins (No. 356/1989) the Committee found violations of the right to a fair trial in
Article 14 (right to a proper defence, right to appeal, right to a trial without undue delay)
and therefore concluded that the right to life was violated and that the victims were
entitled to release.
In
the Francis case mentioned above as well as in Michael Bailey v.
Jamaica (No. 334/1988) and Balkissoon Soogrim
v.
Trinidad and Tobago (No 362/1989)
the Committee found that ill-treatment in prison (beatings, emptying a urine bucket over
the head of the prisoner, throwing food on the floor, etc.) constituted inhuman and
degrading treatment in contradiction of Articles 7 and 10 which entitled the victims to a
remedy including appropriate compensation.
In
other cases (Howard Martin, No.
317/1988, Loxley Griffiths, No. 274/1988) no violation was found and the Committee
reiterated its jurisprudence that prolonged judicial proceedings (Mr. Griffiths spent close
to
II
years on death row prior to commutation of sentence) do not
per
se constitute cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, even
if
they may be a source of mental strain and
tension for convicted prisoners.
John Ballantyne, Elizabeth Davidson and Gordon McIntyre (Nos. 359 and 385/1989)
challenged Canada over a bill enacted by the Province of Quebec which prohibited them
from advertising their businesses on external signs in any language other than French,
when their mother tongue and that of many of their clients was English. The Committee
concluded that the legal measure did not violate the complainants' rights as members of
a'minority' (under Article 27) because under the language of the Covenant - in which
the term 'State' applied to the entire country of Canada - English-speaking people were
not in the minority. The Committee also determined that the law in question did not
breach the authors' rights under the Covenant to equality before the law (under Article
26). Since everyone in the province, whether English- or French-speaking, had to abide
...
Manfred Nowak
469
To continue reading
Request your trial