Wednesday, January 29, 2014

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. 


No comments:

Post a Comment