A/57/40 (Vol. II)
United Nations
Report
of the Human Rights Committee
Volume II
General Assembly
Official Records
Fiftyseventh Session
Supplement No.40 (A/57/40)
A/57/40 (Vol. II)
General Assembly
Official Records
Fifty-seventh Session
Supplement No. 40 (A/57/40)
Report of the Human Rights Committee
Volume II
United Nations New York, 2002
NOTE
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.
ISSN 0255-2353
- 367 -
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Executive summary
Chapter
I. JURISDICTION AND ACTIVITIES
A. States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
B. Sessions of the Committee
C. Attendance of sessions
D. Election of officers
E. Special rapporteurs
F. Working groups
G. Question of honoraria of Committee members
H. Related United Nations human rights activities
I. Meeting with States parties
J. Derogations pursuant to article 4 of the Covenant
K. General Comment under article40, paragraph4, of
the Covenant
L. Staff resources
M. Publicity for the work of the Committee
N. Documents and publications relating to the work of
the Committee
O. Future meetings of the Committee
P. Adoption of the report
GE.02-44849 (E) 051102 281102
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Paragraphs Page
II. METHODS OF WORK OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT: NEW
DEVELOPMENTS
A. Recent developments and decisions on procedures
B. Concluding observations
C. Links to other human rights treaties and treaty bodies
D. Cooperation with other United Nations bodies
III. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
A. Reports submitted to the Secretary-General from
August 2001 to July 2002
B. Overdue reports and non-compliance by States parties
with their obligations under article 40
IV. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY
STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE
COVENANT
1. Ukraine
2. UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and Overseas Territories
3. Switzerland
4. Azerbaijan
5. Georgia
6. Sweden
7. Hungary
8. New Zealand
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Paragraphs Page
IV. (cont’d)
9. Viet Nam
10. Yemen
11. Moldova
V. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER
THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
A. Progress of work
B. Growth of the Committee’s caseload under the
Optional Protocol
C. Approaches to considering communications under the
Optional Protocol
D. Individual opinions
E. Issues considered by the Committee
F. Remedies called for under the Committee’s Views
VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL
PROTOCOL
Annexes
I. STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND TO THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS
AND STATES WHICH HAVE MADE THE DECLARATION UNDER
ARTICLE 41 OF THE COVENANT AS AT 26 JULY 2002
A. States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
B. States parties to the Optional Protocol
CONTENTS (continued)
Annexes Page
I. (cont’d)
C. States parties to the Second Optional Protocol, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty
D. States which have made the declaration under article41 of the Covenant
II. MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE, 2001-2002
A. Membership of the Human Rights Committee
B. Officers
III. A. FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: DECISIONS
ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON
21 MARCH 2002
B. DECISIONS ON WORKING METHODS ADOPTED BY THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON 5 APRIL 2002
IV. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
V. STATUS OF REPORTS CONSIDERED DURING THE PERIOD
UNDER REVIEW AND OF REPORTS STILL PENDING BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE
VI. GENERAL COMMENT UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS
GENERAL COMMENT NO. 30 [75] ON REPORTING OBLIGATIONS
OF STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
VII. LIST OF STATES PARTIES’ DELEGATIONS THAT PARTICIPATED
IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE REPORTS BY
THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE AT ITS SEVENTY-THIRD,
SEVENTY-FOURTH AND SEVENTY-FIFTH SESSIONS
VIII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
CONTENTS (continued)
Annexes Page
IX. VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER
ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS 12
A. Communication No. 580/1994, Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 21 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 12
B. Communication No. 641/1995,
Gedumbe v. Democratic Republic of the Congo
(Views adopted on 9 July2002, seventy-fifth session) 24
C. Communication No. 667/1995, Ricketts v. Jamaica
(Views adopted on 4 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 29
Appendix
D. Communication No. 677/1996, Teesdale v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 1 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 36
Appendix
E. Communication No. 678/1996, Gutierrez Vicanco v. Peru
(Views adopted on 26 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 46
Appendix
F. Communication No. 683/1996, Wanza v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 26 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 55
G. Communication No. 684/1996, Sahadath v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 2 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 61
H. Communication No. 695/1996, Simpson v. Jamaica
(Views adopted on 31 October 2001, seventy-third session) 67
I. Communication No. 721/1997, Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 2 August 2002, seventy-fourth session) 76
J. Communication No. 728/1996, Sahadeo v. Guyana
(Views adopted on 1 November 2001, seventy-third session) 81
Appendix
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annexes
IX. (cont’d)
K. Communication No. 747/1997, Des Fours v. The Czech Republic
(Views adopted on 30 October 2001, seventy-third session) 88
L. Communication No. 763/1997, Lantsova v. Russia
(Views adopted on 26 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 96
M. Communication No. 765/1997, Fábryová v. The Czech Republic
(Views adopted on 30 October 2001, seventy-third session) 103
Appendix
N. Communication No. 774/1997, Brok v. The Czech Republic
(Views adopted on 31 October 2001, seventy-third session) 110
O. Communication No. 779/1997, Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland
(Views adopted on 24 October 2001, seventy-third session) 117
Appendix
P. Communication No. 788/1997, Cagas v. The Philippines
(Views adopted on 23 October 2001, seventy-third session) 131
Appendix
Q. Communication No. 792/1998, Higginson v. Jamaica
(Views adopted on 28 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 140
R. Communication No. 794/1998, Jalloh v. The Netherlands
(Views adopted on 23 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 144
S. Communication No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia
(Views adopted on 3 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 150
T. Communication No. 845/1998, Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 26 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 161
Appendix
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annexes
IX. (cont’d)
U. Communication No. 848/1999, Rodríguez Orejuela v. Colombia
(Views adopted on 23 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 172
V. Communication No. 854/1999, Wackenheim v. France
(Views adopted on 15 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 179
W. Communication No. 859/1999, Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia
(Views adopted on 25 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 187
X. Communication No. 865/1999, Marín Gómez v. Spain
(Views adopted on 22 October 2001, seventy-third session) 198
Appendix
Y. Communication No. 899/1999, Francis et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 25 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 206
Appendix
Z. Communication No. 902/1999, Joslin v. New Zealand
(Views adopted on 17 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 214
Appendix
AA. Communication No. 906/2000, Chira Vargas v. Peru
(Views adopted on 22 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 228
BB. Communication No. 916/2000, Jayawardena v. Sri Lanka
(Views adopted on 22 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 234
Appendix
CC. Communication No. 919/2000, Müller and Engelhard v. Namibia
(Views adopted on 26 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 243
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annexes
IX. (cont’d)
DD. Communication No. 921/2000, Dergachev v. Belarus
(Views adopted on 2 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 252
EE. Communication No. 923/2000, Mátyus v. Slovakia
(Views adopted on 22 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 257
FF. Communication No. 928/2000, Boodlal Sooklal v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 25 October 2001, seventy-third session) 264
GG. Communication No. 932/2000, Gillot v. France
(Views adopted on 15 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 270
HH. Communication No. 946/2000, Patera v. The Czech Republic
(Views adopted on 25 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 294
Appendix
II. Communication No. 965/2000, Karakurt v. Austria
(Views adopted on 4 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 304
Appendix
X. DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DECLARING
COMMUNICATIONS INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE OPTIONAL
PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 312
A. Communication No. 803/1998, Althammer v. Austria
(Decision adopted on 21 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 312
Appendix
B. Communication No. 825/1999, Silva v. Zambia
Communication No. 826/1999, Godwin v. Zambia
Communication No. 827/1999, de Silva v. Zambia
Communication No. 828/1999, Perera v. Zambia
(Decision adopted on 25 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 319
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Annexes
X. (cont’d)
C. Communication No. 880/1999, Irving v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 1 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 324
Appendix
D. Communication No. 925/2000, Koi v. Portugal
(Decision adopted on 22 October 2001, seventy-third session) 333
Appendix
E. Communication No. 940/2000, Zébié v. Côte d’Ivoire
(Decision adopted on 9 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 348
F. Communication No. 1005/2001, Sánchez González v. Spain
(Decision adopted on 21 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 353
G. Communication No. 1048/2002, Riley et al. v. Canada
(Decision adopted on 21 March 2002, seventy-fourth session) 356
H. Communication No. 1055/2002, I.N. v. Sweden
(Decision adopted on 8 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 359
I. Communication No. 1065/2002, Mankarious v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 1 April 2002, seventy-fourth session) 361
J. Communication No. 1087/2002, Hesse v. Australia
(Decision adopted on 15 July 2002, seventy-fifth session) 364
Annex IX
VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5,
PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL ANd POLITICAL RIGHTS
A. Communication No. 580/1994, Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago
(Views adopted on 21 March 2002, seventy-fourth session)[*]
Submitted by: Interights (represented by Ms. Emma Playfair, ExecutiveDirector, and Ms. Natalia Schiffrin, LegalOfficer, on behalf of and representing the author, acting as counsel)
Alleged victim: Mr. Glenn Ashby
State party: Trinidad and Tobago
Date of communication: 6 July 1994 (initial submission)
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 21 March 2002,
Having concluded its consideration of Communication No. 580/1994, submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Interights, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol
1. The communication was submitted on 6 July 1994 by Interights on behalf of GlennAshby, a Trinidadian citizen, at the time of submission awaiting execution at the State prison at Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. On 14 July 1994, after the complaint had been transmitted to the authorities of Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. Ashby was executed in the State prison. Counsel claims that Mr. Ashby was the victim of violations of articles 6, 7, 10, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (b), (c), (d) and (g) and 5 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights.[1]
The facts as submitted by counsel
2.1 Mr. Ashby was arrested on 17 June 1988. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in the Port-of-Spain Assizes Court on 20 July 1989. The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed his appeal on 20 January 1994. On 6 July 1994, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed Mr. Ashby’s subsequent application for special leave to appeal. With this, it was argued, all available domestic remedies within the meaning of the Optional Protocol had been exhausted. While Mr.Ashby might have retained the right to file a constitutional motion in the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Trinidad and Tobago, it is submitted that the State party’s inability or unwillingness to provide legal aid for constitutional motions would have rendered this remedy illusory.
2.2 The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of one S. Williams, who had driven Mr. Ashby and one R. Blackman to the house where the crime was committed. This witness testified that before entering the victim’s house with Blackman, Mr. Ashby had held a penknife in his hand. Furthermore, he testified that Mr. Ashby, after having left the house with Blackman and having entered the car, had said he had “cut the man with the knife”. This testimony was corroborated by evidence of the pathologist, who concluded that the cause of death had been a stab wound to the neck. In addition to that, Mr. Ashby himself allegedly made oral as well as written statements admitting that he had killed the victim.
2.3 The defence challenged the credibility of the testimony of S. Williams and maintained that Mr. Ashby was innocent. It submitted that there was clear evidence that Mr. Williams was himself an accomplice to the crime; that Mr. Ashby had not carried a penknife; that it was Blackman who had sought to involve Mr. Ashby in the crime and that he had been beaten by a police officer after his arrest and had made a subsequent statement only after being promised that he could return home if he gave the statement.
The chronology of events surrounding Mr. Ashby’s execution
3.1 Mr. Ashby’s communication under the Optional Protocol was received by the secretariat of the Human Rights Committee on 7 July 1994. On 13 July 1994, counsel submitted additional clarifications. On the same day, the Committee’s Special Rapporteur on New Communications issued a decision under rules 86 and 91 of the Committee’s rules of procedure to the Trinidad and Tobago authorities, requesting a stay of execution, pending the determination of the case by the Committee, and seeking information and observations on the question of the admissibility of the complaint.
3.2 The combined rule 86/rule 91 request was handed to the Permanent Mission of Trinidad and Tobago at Geneva at 4.05 p.m. Geneva time (10.05 a.m. Trinidad and Tobago time) on13July 1994. According to the Permanent Mission of Trinidad and Tobago, this request wastransmitted by facsimile to the authorities in Port-of-Spain between 4.30 and 4.45 p.m. on the same day (10.30-10.45 a.m. Trinidad and Tobago time).
3.3 Efforts continued throughout the night of 13 to 14 July 1994 to obtain a stay of execution for Mr. Ashby, both before the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. When the Judicial Committee issued a stay order shortly after 11.30 a.m. London time (6.30 a.m. Trinidad and Tobago time) on 14 July, it transpired that Mr. Ashby had already been executed. At the time of his execution, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago was also in session, deliberating on the issue of a stay order.