The United Nations Committees
The Committees – or treaty bodies – are collegial organs created on an ad hoc basis to oversee the implementation by the State Parties of one or the other of the major conventions related to Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. In order to do so, they have at their disposal, in accordance with the terms of the treaty setting up each Committee, several control functions, one of which, for some of them, being the examination of individual complaints (or “communications” as they are also referred to).
There are currently seven Committees of which only four at this point in time, have the authority, under certain conditions, to deal with individual complaints. Anyone has the right to lodge a complaint with one of the aforementioned Committees alleging that he/she has been victim of a breach of the rights guaranteed by the relevant Convention. There are two conditions to respect: - the State concerned by the complaint must be party to the Convention;
- in addition it must have recognised the competence of the Committee concerned to receive individual communications against it.
This recognition is provided for as follows: Consideration of the complaints takes place in accordance with a written down procedure, drafted to be as simple and as accessible as possible. It is basically the same for each of the four Committees. The assistance of a lawyer is not a requirement but neither is it prohibited.
The procedure starts with the submission of the communication to the Committee. There is no need to follow a pre-established form, but in all cases it must specify the personal details of its author, the State party against which the complaint is directed, and a complete chronological account of all the facts on which the claims of violations are based. As a first step, the Committee will decide on the admissibility of the communication and, if accepted, will rule on the merits of the case. A request for “interim measures” can also be envisaged in order to prevent any irreparable harm. At every stage of the process, the State has the right to contest the grounds of the complaint, and the victim can in turn present its views when commenting on the State party’s submissions. The period of time during which a complaint can be under consideration varies: on average it is estimated to be around three years.
Formal requirements of admissibility of individual complaints include: - A valid authorisation (power of attorney) from the victim, if the complaint is not personally lodged by the victim
- The allegations must demonstrate that the plaintiff is personally and directly affected by one or several concrete breaches of the law policy or practice in question
- That the complaint is compatible with the provisions of the treaty invoked (admissibility ratione materiae)
- That the complaint should be sufficiently substantiated and documented
- That all domestic remedies have been exhausted, provided that they are indeed available and effective
- That the complaint should not be an abuse of the complaints process
- That the complaint is not precluded by a reservation the State in question has made to the relevant text.
There is no official time limit to submit a complaint to the Committees. Nevertheless, there have been cases where the Human Rights Committee has pointed out the improper nature of a complaint submitted too long after the alleged facts and without a valid reason.
Committee decisions, both on the admissibility and on the merits of the case, cannot be appealed. The decision on the merits of the case is in the form of a detailed report of the alleged violations -or of the absence of violations- and, if the need arises, propositions concerning measures to be undertaken by way of compensation. If the decision is in favour of the plaintiff, the Committee invites the State to notify him within three months the measures taken in order to give effect to the decision.
However, the Committees being quasi-judicial bodies, their decisions are non-binding and are only worth as a recommendation. Nevertheless, any State which has pledged, in good faith, to fulfil its obligations as stipulated under a Convention, would normally be expected to comply with the conclusions of the body set up especially to oversee its implementation. In reality, the authority a committee decision has over any State varies considerably from one State to another.
>>> The Special Procedures The UN Committees: two interesting examples
The Committee Against Torture, in the Suleymane and others v. Senegal case, found that Senegal had breached two of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture with regard to the deposed Chadian dictator Hissène Habré. In the first place, Senegal should have acknowledged the principle of universal jurisdiction to judge anyone guilty of torture living within its territory. The Senegalese parliament however, had not voted provisions conferring the right on its courts to prosecute acts of torture committed abroad by foreign citizens (universal jurisdiction). For this reason, the Dakar Trial Chamber declared that it lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with criminal proceedings instituted by Chadian victims against Hissène Habré in Senegal. In the second place, Senegal also breached its obligation either to try the perpetrators of acts of torture living within its territory, or to extradite them to a State which would want to try these crimes. In this particular case, the decision to stop the case against Hisséne Habré, put a definitive halt to any possibility of criminal proceedings against him in Senegal. Furthermore, the courts of the country refused to grant the extradition of the former dictator to Belgium despite the fact that this country had declared that it was ready to put him on trial.
In the Bourcherf v. Algeria case, the Human Rights Committee considered that the disappearance of the plaintiff’s son involved a violation of the right to liberty and security of person (Art. 9 of the ICCPR) and of the right that no one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 7 ICCPR). The Committee furthermore pointed out that such acts were also contrary to the right to life (Art. 5) and, in the case of someone deprived of his liberty, to the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Moreover the anguish felt by the mother of the victim, due to the fact that she was neither aware of the fate of her son, nor of the place where he could be found, constituted in itself a treatment which contravened Art. 7 of the Covenant. The right to an effective remedy was also breached, since the victim, despite all efforts, was unable to benefit from an available and effective remedy which could have awarded damages for the abuses to which he was subjected.
Furthermore, having been informed that an amnesty law was in preparation in Algeria, the Committee considered that the State could not legally oppose this draft to individuals who had the right to invoke the provisions of the Covenant or who had already submitted a complaint to the Committee. | <<< The Special Procedures
|
