University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

Transcription

1 Lake Lubicon Band (Human Rights Committee 1990) Do the members of the Lake Lubicon Band have the right to sel.,f-determination? Can their chief, Bernard Ominayak, present that claim to the Human Rights Committee? What is the nature of the claim presented to the Human Rights Committee? Have domestic remedies been exhausted? What is the holding of the Committee? Canada's actions -- historically and more recently in permitting oil and timber development -- violate Article 27 of the ICCPR, which protects "the right of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and social activities which are.part of the culture of the community to which they belong. " Is it binding on the Canadian government? What points were made by the two Committee members who submitted separate opinions? University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

2 Bradshaw v. Barbados (H.R. Committee 1994) ~o" "By ratifying the Covenant and the Optional ~. Protocol, Barbados has undertaken to fulfil its obligations thereunder and has recognized the Committee's competence to receive and consider communications from individuals.... While the Covenant is not part of the domestic law of Barbados which can be applied directly by the courts, the State party has nevertheless accepted the Ie al ob. n to make the provisions 01 the Covenant e ectlve. To this extent, it is an ob i 1nn for the State party to ado t a rop.riate measures to ive Ie al e ect as to t e. altb.e., CalVuuttce -.. " [Emphasis added.] 3t2..

3 Bradshaw v. Barbados (H.R. Committee 1994) "By ratifying the Covenant and the Optional Protocol, Barbados has undertaken to fulfil its obligations thereunder and has recognized the Committee's competence to receive and consider communications from individuals... While the Covenant is not part of the domestic law of Barbados which can be applied directly by the courts, the State party has nevertheless accepted the legal obligation to make the provisions of the Covenant effective. To this extent, it is an obligation for the State party to adopt appropriate measures to give legal effect as to the views of the C ommlttee "... [Emphasis added.]

4 Bleier v. Uruguay (H.R. Committee 1982) How do we know Eduardo Bleier "disappeared"? * Arrested without a court order (never acknowledged by the authorities). * Name was on a list of prisoners. * Family did his laundry. Was he tortured? Covered with earth - other prisoners walked over him. What is the responsibility of the government of Uruguay? "[T]he state party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its authorities... " What provisions of the Covenant were violated?

5 Bleier v. Uruguay (H.R. Committee 1982) How do we know Eduardo Bleier "disa eared"? ~~.t.;...;;.;~. * Arrested without a court order (never acknowledged by the authorities). * Name was on a list of prisoners. JOIl * Family did his laundry. rot:, Was he tortured? Covered with earth - other prisoners walked over him. qj ~,3 What is the responsibility of the government of Uruguay? "[T]he state party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation of the C;; /ll Covenant made against it and its authorities... " What provisions of the Covenant were violated? 'ij,"

6 Quinteros v. Uruguay (H.R.Committee 1983) f Did Elena Quinteros Almeida "disa ea~"? * Arrested at her home f /. ~. * Seized a second time at the Venezuelan Embassy [witness testimony] CjJ /.l. [Was that a violation of international law - to enter the Venezuelan Embassy] * Witness saw her in military detention. What provisions of the Covenant were violated? CflI "7 Were the human rights of Elena's mother also violated? (jf I~ g "In cases where the author has submitted to the Committee allegations supported by substantial witness testimony, as in this case, and where further clarification of the case depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider such allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary submitted by the State party." Good rule?

7 Quinteros v. Uruguay (H.R.Committee 1983) Did Elena Quinteros Almeida "disappear"? * Arrested at her home * Seized a second time at the Venezuelan Embassy [witness testimony] [Was that a violation of intemationallaw - to enter the Venezuelan Embassy] * Witness saw her in military detention. What provisions of the Covenant were violated? Were the human rights of Elena's mother also violated? "In cases where the author has submitted to the Committee allegations supported by substantial witness testimony, as in this case, and where further clarification of the case depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider such allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary submitted by the State party." Good rule?

8 Mojica v. Dominican Republic (HRCmte1994) Did Rafael Mojica "disappear"? * He had received death threats from some military officers. * He entered a taxi with others in it. Is that sufficient? Was he tortured?

9 Mojica v. Dominican Republic (HRCmte1994) Did Rafael Mojica "disappear"? * He had received death threats from some military officers. 'II. - * He entered a taxi with others in it. 1/2./ II Is that sufficient? Was he tortured?

10 Primo Jose Essono Mika Miha v. Equitorial Guinea (414/1990) Govenlnlent official/opposition leader Forcibly abducted Deprived of food and drink for a week Tortured for two days Deprived of nledical attention for one Inonth What was the government's response? Interference with domestic affairs! How did the Committee treat the evidence it received? After conlplaining party sublnits prima facie evidence, burden shifts to the governlnent to address and respond to this evidence.

11 Kennedy v. Trinidad & Tobago (845/1999) Trinidad & Tobago subltiitted a reservation excluding fronl the jurisdiction of the Human Rights ConUllittee all conlmunications fronl a person sentenced to death. Legitimate? The COlTIlTIittee ruled that it was not, because it discrinlinated against a class of people.

12 John Baboeram et al v. Suriname (HR Committee 1985) Fifteen prominent citizens were rounded up by the military on December 8, 1982, and then their bodies were delivered to the morgue the next day. Exhaustion of domestic remedies? Any ongoing investigation by a regional human rights body? What was the defense/explanation provided by Suriname? Was there an emergency justifying the derogation of human rights? Is there a duty to investigate allegations of human rights abuses? How much damages are appropriate?