CwJ g! ri.'k';; tjt.n Cv.-...r

Transcription

1 pt, ;: ( r CwJ g! ri.'k';; tjt.n Cv.-...r Dl!~ 6 U' ~./.' '-' ~ _ Jh.~ 'f IJt C... ;tt; p, r Q..j.."l JJL - 1M 'f I ij J'I ~:u ~h' '''''' - ()/{.~ ~ Ui,.,. ~ ~j/e"? U~?

2 _ ( g? en.,... J- :! 2!!L J ) '1 N. Ii- ()~ P~? p~ ~ '~ -4 po ~ ~"~.I ~ ~ cyvq.~""j"~'.h!

3 NATIONS UNIES UNITED NATIONS SER VICE DE L OINFORMATION OFnCE DES ~ATIONS UNIES A CEN[VE INFORMATION SERVICE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT CEN[VA Press Release HR/270l 4 January 1991 DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights individuals, who claim that any of their rights enwnerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domes tic remedies, may submit wri t ten communications to the Hwnan Rights Committee for consideration. Fifty one of the 92 States which have acceded to or ratified the Covenant have accepted the competence of the Committee to deal with individual complaints by ratifying or acceding to 4'he Optional ProtocoD These States are: Al eria, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, 0 the Centra K~n Republic, Colombia, Congo, Coata Rica, Denmark, the Dominlcan Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gambia, CHunga~ Iceland, liie1.a~j Italy, Jamaica,!J.b-l,an rab h~ LuxembourK, Madagascar, I Marta Maurit r: ~r if Nethe h ;n s, caragua 1 er. New Zealand Norway P!!Jl.BlIlB Peru h~nlu!!p~ne Ll Portugal, Re u hc of Korea, Saint-Vincent ~d the' Grenadines, im=tfarino, Senegal, Soma a Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, ~ e and Zambia. No communication can be received by the Committee if it concerns a State party to the Covenant which is not also party to the Optional Protoco~. Consideration of communications under the Optional Protocol takes place ln closed meetings. (more)

4 Press Release HR/2701 Page 2 At its fortieth session held from 22 October to 9 November 1990, the Human Rights Committee examined a number of communications submitted to it under the Optional Protocol. It concluded consideration of two cases by adopting its views thereon. These are cases nos. 298/1988 (Lindgren ~. v. Sweden) and 299/1988 (Hjord et a1. v. Sweden). The views of the Human Rights Committee are available upon request. The Human Rights Committee also concluded consideration of ten cases by declaring them inadmissible. These are cases nos. 254/1987 (W.W. v. Jamaica), 302/1988 (A.H. v. Trinidad and Tobago), 303/1988 (E.B. v. Jamaica), 315/1988 (R.M. v. Jamaica), 354/1989 (L.G. v. Mauritius), 372/1989 (R.L.W. v. the Netherlands), 389/1989 (I.S. v. Hungary), 409/1990 (E.M. v. France), 413/1990 (A.B. v. Italy) and 419/1990 (O.J. v. Finland). The inadmissibility decisions are also available upon request. * *** *

5 NATIONS UNIES UNITED NATIONS SERVICE DE ["INFORMATION OFFICE DES NA TIONS UNIES A GENEVE INFORMA TION SER VICE UNITED NA TIONS OFF/CE AT GENEVA Press Release HR/ December 1990 DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE PURSANT TO ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREAll1ENT OR PllNISHMENT (The following release is being issued simultaneously in Geneva and New York) Under article 22 of the Convention agains.t Torture individuals, who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of any provision of the Convention and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies, may submit written communications to the Committee Against Torture for consideration. Twenty-four of the 54 States which have acceded to or ratified the Convention have accepted the competence of the Committee to deal with individual complaints by making a declaration under article 22 of the Convention. These States are: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia,!urkey_ and Uruguay. No communication can be received by the Committee if it concerns a State party to the Convention which has not also made a declaration under article 22 of the Convention. Consideration of communications takes place in closed meetings. At its fifth session held from 12 to 23 November 1990, the Committee Against Torture examined a number of communications submitted to it under article 22. It concluded consideration of one case by declaring it inadmissible. This is case No. 5/1990 (W.J. v. Austria). The inadmissibility decision is available upon request. * ***** *