Discussion on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Exclusive Notes

Written by HT AL-AMIN KHAN, Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka.

Introduction

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. It is one of the two main human rights treaties that form the International Bill of Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The ICCPR outlines a comprehensive framework of civil and political rights that are universal and indivisible. These rights are aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity and autonomy of every individual, and are considered fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. The ICCPR has been ratified by more than 170 countries, and has played a significant role in shaping international human rights law and practice. The treaty is overseen by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors its implementation by States parties and provides guidance on interpretation of its provisions.

 

Rights Under ICCPR

The ICCPR recognizes a range of civil and political rights that are inherent to all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religion, or other status. These rights include:

Article 1: The right to self-determination.

Article 2: The right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated, even if the violator was acting in an official capacity.

Article 3: The right to equality between men and women in the enjoyment of their civil and political rights.

(Here noted that Articles 2 to 5 describe the state obligation and derogation of rights under ICCPR) 

Article 6: The right to life and survival.

Article 7: The freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8: The freedom from slavery and servitude.

Article 9: The right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention.

Article 11: The freedom from prison due to debt.

Article 12: The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence

Article 14: The right to equality before the law; the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to have a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal. It is called the Right to a fair trial and due process.

Article 16: The right to be recognized as a person before the law.

Article 17: The right to privacy and its protection by the law.

Article 18: The freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Article 19: The freedom of opinion and expression.

Article 20: Prohibition of propaganda advocating war or national, racial or religious hatred.

Article 21: The right to peaceful assembly.

Article 22: The right to freedom of association.

Article 23: The right to marry and found a family.

Article 24: The rights for children (status as minors, nationality, registration and name).

Article 25: The right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected and access to public service.

Article 26: The right to equality before the law and equal protection. (Non- Discrimination Principles)

Article 27: The right, for members of religious, ethnic or linguistic minorities, to enjoy their culture, practice their religion and use their language.

These rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and are essential for the full realization of human dignity and the development of a just and democratic society. The ICCPR also requires States parties to take measures to ensure that these rights are guaranteed and protected for all individuals within their jurisdiction.

 

Judicial Observation

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a key human rights treaty that sets out the civil and political rights that are to be respected and protected by governments worldwide. Here are some famous cases under the ICCPR:

 

1.  Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay: This case involved a Uruguayan journalist who was detained and interrogated by the police for publishing an article critical of the government. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that Uruguay had violated the journalist's rights to freedom of expression and due process under the ICCPR.

 

2.   Toonen v. Australia: This case involved a gay rights activist who challenged the criminalization of homosexual acts in the Australian state of Tasmania. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Australia had violated the activist's right to privacy and non-discrimination under the ICCPR.

 

3. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation: This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized homosexual acts. The Indian Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, despite arguments that it violated the right to equality and non-discrimination under the ICCPR.

 

4.   Ahmed Zaoui v. New Zealand: This case involved a refugee who was detained in New Zealand on suspicion of terrorism. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that New Zealand had violated the refugee's right to liberty and due process under the ICCPR, and called for his release.

 

5.    Amin v. The Gambia: This case involved the death in custody of a Gambian journalist who had criticized the government. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights found that The Gambia had violated the journalist's right to life, freedom of expression, and due process under the ICCPR.

 

6.   Sarekat Islam v. Indonesia (1995): In this case, the UN Human Rights Committee held that the Indonesian government had violated the right to freedom of religion by prohibiting the Islamic group Sarekat Islam from holding a religious procession.

 

7.   A v. Australia (1997): The UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia had violated the right to a fair trial by deporting an asylum seeker before his appeal could be heard.

 

8.   Kavanagh v. Ireland (2000): The UN Human Rights Committee held that Ireland had violated the right to freedom of expression by prohibiting a candidate from distributing a political leaflet during an election campaign.

 

9.  Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay (1981): In this case, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Uruguay had violated the right to freedom of expression by imposing a heavy fine on a journalist for criticizing a public official.

 

10. Toonen v. Australia (1994): The UN Human Rights Committee held that Australia had violated the right to privacy by criminalizing homosexual activity between consenting adults.

 

These cases demonstrate the importance and impact of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in protecting and promoting human rights globally. It is noted that all the cases had been trialed by the International Court of Justice.

Committee and Its Function

The Human Rights Committee is a body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by its State parties. The Committee is established under Article 28 of the ICCPR and is composed of 18 members who are elected by State parties to the Covenant.

The main functions of the Human Rights Committee include:

Reviewing State party reports: The Committee reviews periodic reports submitted by State parties on their implementation of the ICCPR and provides recommendations to improve their human rights records.

Considering individual communications: The Committee can consider individual complaints, also known as communications, from individuals or groups who claim that their rights under the ICCPR have been violated by a State party.

Issuing general comments: The Committee can issue general comments on the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the ICCPR.

Conducting inquiries: The Committee may initiate inquiries into serious or systematic violations of human rights by a State party.

Adoption of views: After considering individual communications, the Committee may adopt views on whether there has been a violation of the ICCPR and may make recommendations to the State party concerned.

In carrying out its functions, the Human Rights Committee engages in a dialogue with State parties and encourages them to implement the ICCPR effectively. The Committee's recommendations and views are not legally binding, but they carry significant moral and political weight and can influence the human rights policies and practices of State parties.

Optional Protocol

First Optional Protocol

This Protocol authorized to individuals can file complaints under the ICCPR through a procedure known as the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. This protocol allows individuals to submit complaints to the Human Rights Committee alleging violations of their rights under the ICCPR by a state party to the treaty. However, the state party must have ratified the Optional Protocol for this procedure to be available. The Human Rights Committee will then consider the complaint and make recommendations to the state party on how to address the alleged violation. It is important to note that the Optional Protocol only allows individuals to submit complaints after they have exhausted all available domestic remedies.

Here is a brief overview of the procedure:

1.  Exhaust domestic remedies: Before filing a complaint, individuals must exhaust all available domestic remedies, meaning they must have pursued all legal remedies within their own country's judicial system.

2.   Submit the complaint: The complaint should be submitted in writing, either in English or one of the other official languages of the United Nations, and must contain specific information about the alleged violation of the ICCPR. All individual complaints should be submitted to the Petitions Team following way-

Mailing address:
Petitions and Inquiries Section
 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
 United Nations Office at Geneva
 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
E-mail addresses: petitions@ohchr.org, TB-petitions@ohchr.org, ccpr@ohchr.org, and registry@ohchr.org.
Fax: 
 + 41 22 917 90 22
 (particularly for urgent matters) 

3. Consideration of admissibility: The Human Rights Committee will first consider the admissibility of the complaint to determine if it meets certain criteria, such as Must be state the name of parties, Rights which is violated, Status of the judicial procedure which he filled in his country legal system, the complaint should also include any supporting documentation or evidence whether the complaint is within the Committee's jurisdiction and whether it is manifestly ill-founded or an abuse of the right to submit a complaint.

4.   Examination on the merits: If the complaint is found to be admissible, the Committee will then examine the case on its merits, which may involve requesting additional information from the individual or the State party in question.

5.  Views and recommendations: After examination, the Committee will issue its views and recommendations, which are not legally binding but carry significant moral and political weight.

It is important to note that the process of submitting a complaint to the Human Rights Committee can be complex and time-consuming, and individuals may wish to seek legal assistance or advice before proceeding.

Second Optional Protocol

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) aims to abolish the death penalty worldwide. The protocol was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 and entered into force in 1991.

Under the Second Optional Protocol, States parties are required to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdictions. If a State has not yet abolished the death penalty, it must undertake to do so as soon as possible. The protocol also prohibits States from re-introducing the death penalty after it has been abolished.

In addition to abolishing the death penalty, the Second Optional Protocol also requires States parties to take a number of measures to ensure that persons who are sentenced to death are not subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This includes ensuring that all death sentences are imposed only for the most serious crimes, that fair trial guarantees are respected, and that all persons sentenced to death have the right to seek pardon or commutation of their sentences.

The Second Optional Protocol has been ratified by 89 States as of March 2023. This represents a significant step forward in the global effort to abolish the death penalty and promote human rights and dignity for all individuals. The protocol has been instrumental in encouraging States to reconsider their use of the death penalty and to explore alternative approaches to punishment that are more humane, effective, and respectful of human rights.

 

Conclusion

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a United Nations treaty that was adopted in 1966 and came into force in 1976. It is one of the most important international human rights treaties, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The ICCPR outlines a range of civil and political rights that are considered fundamental to all human beings, including the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial. The Covenant also includes provisions for the protection of minorities, the prohibition of discrimination, and the right to participate in public life.

The ICCPR has been ratified by over 170 countries, making it one of the most widely accepted international human rights treaties. Each state that ratifies the Covenant is required to submit periodic reports on its implementation to the UN Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the treaty. The Committee can also hear individual complaints from people who believe their rights under the Covenant have been violated.


Reference:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) : A Landmark case on Sales Tax Law

Image
      Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Case name: Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) Citation:  AIR 1952 Mad 91. Introduction This is a landmark case on sales tax law that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1953. The case is Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, which involved a dispute between a merchant firm and the provincial government over the liability to pay sales tax on goods sold outside the province. Facts Poppatlal Shah was a partner of a firm called Indo-Malayan Trading Company, which had its head office in Madras (now Chennai). The firm dealt with groundnut oil, sago and kirana articles, and received orders from merchants in Calcutta (now Kolkata) for supply of these goods. The firm purchased these goods from local markets in Madras and dispatched them to Calcutta by rail or steamer. The railway receipts or bills of lading were taken in the name of the sellers and so were the insur
Read more

ARREST : THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1898

Image
Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Arrest Generally Arrest how made Section 46 of The law specifies the procedure for making an arrest and the limitations on using force during the process. According to this section: 1.      Arrest Procedure : When making an arrest, the police officer or person arresting must physically touch or confine the person, except if the person agrees to be arrested by their words or actions. 2.      Use of Force: If the person being arrested resists with force or tries to escape, the arresting officer can use any necessary means to make the arrest. 3.     Restriction on Lethal Force: This section does not allow causing the death of a person accused of a non-capital offense. Lethal force is only permitted for those accused of offenses punishable by death or transportation for life. Search Procedure during Arrest: Sections 47, 48, 51, and 52 Searching for Arrested Person S
Read more

Marbury vs. Madison 1803 : A Landmark Case Study

Image
  Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Introduction Marbury v. Madison was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1803.  Fact The case arose from a political dispute between President John Adams and President-elect Thomas Jefferson, who had defeated Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Adams had appointed a number of "midnight judges" to the federal judiciary in the final days of his presidency, including William Marbury. However, Jefferson and his supporters in Congress believed that these appointments were made purely for political purposes and sought to block them. When Jefferson took office, he directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace. Marbury then brought a lawsuit against Madison in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus (a court order directing Madison to deliver his commission) under the Judiciary Act of
Read more