I United Nations
| Date | 01 June 1995 |
| Published date | 01 June 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419501300205 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Part B: Human Rights
News
I UNITED NATIONS
A.
Human
Rights Committee
Geneva, July and October 1994
Manfred Nowak
During its 51st and 52nd sessions, held at Geneva from 4 to 29 July and from 17 October
to 4 November 1994, the Human Rights Committee decided on 34 individual
communications submitted under the first Optional Protocol (OP) to the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (CCPR). 14 communications(against Barbados, the Czech Republic,
France, Jamaica, Mauritius, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Zaire) were
declared inadmissible, and 20 communications were decided on the merits. An interesting
question was raised in Ponsamy Poongavanam vs Mauritius (No. 567/1993). According
to the Jury Act of Mauritius only men were entitled to serve as a juror. The author, a
Mauritian man who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a jury of nine
men, alleged that the exclusion of women from jury service was discriminatory and
violated Articles 3, 14, 25(c) and 26 CCPR. Since he had failed to show how the absence
of
women on the jury actually prejudiced the enjoyment of his rights the Committee
declared his communication inadmissible for lack of standing as a 'victim' within the
meaning of Article 1 OP. In the Case
of
Zdenek Drbal vs the Czech Republic (No.
498/1992) concerning child custody proceedingsbefore Czech courts the Swedish member
Wennergren dissented with the inadmissibility decision.
In nine of the 20 final views concerning Canada, Finland, France, the Netherlands,
Norway, Spain and Sweden the Committee decided that there was no violation of the
Covenant. Most controversial was the Case
of
Keith Cox vs Canada (No. 539/1993). As
the Cases
of
Kindler and Ng decided in 1993 (see NQHR, Vol. 12,
No.1,
1994, pp. 35
and 177) it relates to capital punishment in the USA and involves the question of whether
Canada violated Articles 6 and/or 7 CCPR by having extradited the author to the US
without assurances as to the imposition of thedeath penalty. Mr. Cox, a black US citizen,
was arrested in Quebec for theft, a charge to which he pleaded guilty. While in custody,
the United States requested his extradition on two charges of first-degree murder allegedly
committed in Pennsylvania in 1988.
If
convicted, he could face the death penalty and
execution by lethal injunction, although the two other accomplices were tried and
sentenced to life terms. The decision of the Canadian Minister of Justice not to seek
assurances from the US Government that the death penalty would not be imposed, a right
conferred upon him by the 1976 Extradition Treaty between Canada and the US, was
based, in particular, on the absence of exceptional circumstances, the availability of due
process in Pennsylvania, and the importance of not providing a safe haven for US
criminals.
The Committee again confirmed its jurisprudence thatthe fact of extraditing a person
in such circumstances that as a result there is a real risk that his or her rights under the
Covenant (in particular Articles 6 or 7) will be violated in another jurisdiction may
amount to a violation of the Covenant by the extraditing State (paragraph 16(1». As in
the Kindler Case, the majority concluded that Canada's extradition decision was not taken
149
To continue reading
Request your trial