Individual case decisions of the human rights treaty bodies in 2013

There have been 78 individual case decisions issued by the UN human rights treaty system in 2013.  The exact number is always a little uncertain.  I've included below one decision which was technically issued in 2012 but which apparently first became available in 2013 (CCPR 1912 Thuraisamy v. Canada). In addition there is one decision that has been listed by the human rights office but is not yet available (CCPR 1839 Komarovsky v. Belarus). 

Here is a table of decisions, in chronological order as they were issued during 2013, showing the treaty body that issued the decision, complaint number, party names, outcome and session during which the case was decided. 

No.	Treaty	Case no.	Parties	Outcome	Session
1	CERD	48/2010	TBB v. Germany	Violation	82nd Feb 2013
2	CRPD	1/2010	Nyusti et al v. Hungary	Violation	9th Apr 2013
3	CCPR	1785/2008	Olechkevitch v. Belarus	Violation	107th Mar 2013
4	CCPR	1787/2008	Kovsh v. Belarus	Violation	107th Mar 2013
5	CCPR	1788/2008	B.W.M.Z. v. Netherlands	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
6	CCPR	1791/2008	Boudjemai v. Algeria	Violation	107th Mar 2013
7	CCPR	1806/2008	Saadoun v. Algeria	Violation	107th Mar 2013
8	CCPR	1807/2008	Mechani v. Algeria	Violation	107th Mar 2013
9	CCPR	1835/2008*	Yasinovich et al v. Belarus	Violation	107th Mar 2013
10	CCPR	1857/2008	A.P. v. Russia	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
11	CCPR	1861/2009	Bakurov v. Russia	No violation	107th Mar 2013
12	CCPR	1886/2009	X v. Netherlands	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
13	CCPR	1904/2009	D.T.T. v. Colombia	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
14	CCPR	1911/2009	T.J. v. Lithuania	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
15	CCPR	1912/2009	Thuraisamy v. Canada [this is a 2012 case from the Committee’s 106th session; it was first available as of  8/6/13, but dated 7/9/13]	Violation [dissent]	106th Nov 2012
16	CCPR	1913/2009	Abushaala v. Libya	Violation	107th Mar 2013
17	CCPR	1917/2009*	Prutina et al v. Bosnia & Herzegovina	Violation	107th Mar 2013
18	CCPR	1921/2009	K.S. v. Australia	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
19	CCPR	1938/2010	Q.H.L. v. Australia	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
20	CCPR	1943/2010	H.P.N. v. Spain	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
21	CCPR	1945/2010	Achabal Puertas v. Spain	Violation	107th Mar 2013
22	CCPR	1957/2010	Lin v. Australia	No violation	107th Mar 2013
23	CCPR	1962/2010	S.N.A. v. Cameroun	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
24	CCPR	2027/2011	Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan	Inadmissible	107th Mar 2013
25	CAT	392/2009**	R.S.M. v. Canada	No violation	50th May 2013
26	CAT	430/2010**	Abichou v. Germany	Violation	50th May 2013
27	CAT	431/2010**	Y. v. Switzerland	No violation dissents	50th May 2013
28	CAT	439/2010**	M.B.F. et al v. Switzerland	No violation	50th May 2013
29	CAT	463/2011**	D.Y. v. Sweden	No violation	50th May 2013
30	CAT	467/2011**	Y.B.F. et al v. Switzerland	No violation	50th May 2013
31	CAT	479/2011**	E.E. v. Russia	Inadmissible	50th May 2013
32	CEDAW	033/2011	M.N.N. v. Denmark	Inadmissible	55th July 2013
33	CEDAW	035/2011	M.E.N. v. Denmark	Inadmissible dissent	55th July 2013
34	CEDAW	040/2012	M.S. v. Denmark	Inadmissible	55th July 2013
35	CCPR	1592/2007+	Pichugina v. Belarus	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
36	CCPR	1796/2008	Zerrougui v. Algeria	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
37	CCPR	1798/2008	Azouz v. Algeria	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
38	CCPR	1808/2008+	Kovalenko v. Belarus	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
39	CCPR	1809/2008+	V.B. v. Czech Republic	Inadmissible	108th/Jul 2013
40	CCPR	1831/2008	Larbi v. Algeria	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
41	CCPR	1832/2008+	Al Khazmi v. Libya	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
42	CCPR	1865/2009	Sedhai v. Nepal	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
43	CCPR	1881/2009	Masih v. Canada	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
44	CCPR	1897/2009+	S.Y.L. et al. v. Australia	Inadmissible	108th/Jul 2013
45	CCPR	1928/2010+	Singh v. France	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
46	CCPR	1948/2010+	Turchenyak v. Belarus	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
47	CCPR	2094/2011+	A.G.F.K. et al. v. Australia	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
48	CCPR	2136/2012+	M.M.M. et al. v. Australia	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
49	CCPR	2149/2012+	M.I. v. Sweden	Violation	108th/Jul 2013
50	CCPR	2202/2012+	Castaneda v. Mexico	No violation	108th/Jul 2013
51	CERD	47/2010	Moylan v. Australia	Inadmissible	83rd/Aug 2013
52	CRPD	4/2011	Bujdoso et al v. Hungary	Violation	10th/Sep 2013
53	CCPR	1612/2007	F.B.L. v. Costa Rica	Inadmissible	109th/Oct 2013
54	CCPR	1764/2008	Alekperov v. Russia	No violation	109th/Oct 2013
55	CCPR	1795/2008	Zhirnov v. Russia	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
56	CCPR	1839/2008	Komarovsky v. Belarus	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
57	CCPR	1851/2008	Sekerko v. Belarus	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
58	CCPR	1856/2008	Sevostyanov v. Russia	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
59	CCPR	1873/2009	Alekseev v. Russia	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
60	CCPR	1874/2009	Mihoubi v. Algeria	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
61	CCPR	1879/2009	A.W.P. v. Denmark	Inadmissible	109th/Oct 2013
62	CCPR	1884/2009	Faraoun v. Algeria	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
63	CCPR	1898/2009	Choudhary v. Canada	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
64	CCPR	1910/2009	Zhuk v. Belarus	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
65	CCPR	1919-20/2009	Protsko et al v. Belarus	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
66	CCPR	1922/2009	Martinez et al v. Algeria	Inadmissible	109th/Oct 2013
67	CCPR	1923/2009	R.C. v. France	Inadmissible	109th/Oct 2013
68	CCPR	1955/2010	Al-Gertani v. Bosnia & Herzegovina	Violation	109th/Oct 2013
69	CCPR	2014/2010	D.J. v. Lithuania	Inadmissible	109th/Oct 2013
70	CEDAW	29/2011	Sankhe v. Spain	Inadmissible	56th/Oct 2013
71	CEDAW	44/2012	M.K.D.A.-A v. Denmark	Inadmissible	56th/Oct 2013
72	CAT	376/2009	Bendib v. Algeria (French)	Violation	51st/Nov 2013
73	CAT	387/2009	Dewage v. Australia	Violation	51st/Nov 2013
74	CAT	426/2010	R.D. v. Switzerland	No violation	51st/Nov 2013
75	CAT	429/2010	Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark	No violation	51st/Nov 2013
76	CAT	434/2010	Y.G.H. v. Australia	No violation	51st/Nov 2013
77	CAT	438/2010	M.A.H. & F.H. v. Switzerland	No violation	51st/Nov 2013
78	CAT	441/2010	Evloev v. Kazakhstan	Violation	51st/Nov 2013

*combines 2 or more complaints in one decision

Statistical breakout

Of the 78 decisions, there were 41 cases where the state was held responsible for human rights violations.  No violations were held to be committed in 13 cases.  And 24 cases were dismissed as inadmissible for various reasons, usually because the complainant failed to adequately exhaust domestic legal remedies before filing the complaint with the treaty body. 

As in prior years, the majority of decisions are issued by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR); they issued 55 decisions in 2013.  The breakout by the remaining Committees was as follows: Committee Against Torture (CAT) -- 14 decisions; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) -- 5 decisions; the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) -- 2 decisions; and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) -- 2 decisions. 

Copies of decisions

The full text of each of these decisions can be accessed at each Committee website (look for the menu item "Complaints procedure" and then click "Table of jurisprudence").  Or you can also usually find copies in the treaty body database maintained by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. 

Most significant decisions

The most significant decisions issued in 2013 probably included the two Australia asylum decisions reported by the Human Rights Committee in July (A.G.F.K. v. Australia and M.M.M. v. Australia) -- both of which held Australia's practice of indefinite detention for some types of "security risk" asylum seekers to be illegal.  I summarised these cases in an earlier post. 

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) also continues to issue important precedent cases.  In Nyusti et al v. Hungary they held that governments must ensure access of disabled persons to private banking facilities, including ATM machines, and including for both visual and physical impairments.  The decision is significant in that it underlines the application of the treaty to private businesses, not just government or public businesses. It also sets out some minimum expectations for governments in this regard.   In Bjudoso et al v. Hungary the Committee decided that   the right to vote must not be discriminatorily applied to disabled persons; the blanket prohibition from voting of persons with perceived intellectual disabilities was held to be a violation of the Convention. 

Oher decisions of 2013 bear further discussion. Hopefully I will get some time to summarise some of the more important decisions in a later post. I welcome feedback from others who have reviewed any of the decisions that came out in 2013 regarding what they regard as the most important developments.