United Nations: Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 887-890
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

Views Adopted by the Committee Under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Sanila-aikio v. Finland, Communication No. 2668/2015, and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al., Communication No. 2950/2017 (H.R. Comm'n)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-332
Author(s):  
CJ Iorns Magallanes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Electoral Roll ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Article 5

On November 1 and 2, 2018, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (the Committee) adopted views pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol in the cases of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland and Klemetti Käkkäläjärvi et al. In respect of both communications, the Committee considered that the interpretation made by the Finland Supreme Administrative Court (the Court), of who was eligible to be a member of the Sami Parliament's electoral roll, violated Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), read alone and in conjunction with Article 27, and in light of Article 1.

Jamaica Withdraws the Right of Individual Petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Schiffrin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roll Back ◽  
Individual Petition

In October 1997, a little-noticed event took place at the United Nations that may roll back the international legal protection of human rights. Jamaica became the first country to denounce the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and thus withdrew the right of individual petition to the UN Human Rights Committee (Committee). Although it is provided for under the Protocol’s Article 12, no state has previously made such a denunciation.

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning A.S., D.I., O.I., and G.D. V. Italy, Communication No. 3042/2017 (U.N. Hum. Rts. COMM.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Patricia Vella De Fremeaux (Mallia) ◽  
Felicity G. Attard
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

On January 27, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC or Committee) published two separate decisions in response to communications brought against Malta and Italy. Both decisions concerned the same incident, which occurred on October 11, 2013, where over 200 migrants drowned in a shipwreck in the Mediterranean. The first complaint brought against Malta was dismissed by the Committee on procedural grounds. In the second case, A.S., D.I., O.I. and G.D. v. Italy, the HRC found that Italy had failed to protect the right to life of the migrants under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This introductory note discusses the significance of the Committee's findings in this decision and its ramifications with respect to the protection of human rights at sea.

The Protocol to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Inter-American System: A Study of Co-Existing Petition Procedures

1976 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 778-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. E. Tardu
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
The Other ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
American System ◽  
System A ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
American States ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The One

The purpose of this article is to examine the main legal questions that arise from the co-existence of two sets of international procedures for handling individual petitions: the system established by the Optional Protocol to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the one hand, and two regional procedures within the framework of the Organization of American States, on the other.

scholarly journals The Admissibility of Multiple Human Rights Complaints: Strasbourg and Geneva Compared

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-536
Author(s):  
Christophe Deprez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

Abstract This article seeks to provide a comparative and up-to-date overview of the applicable rules and relevant practice of the European Court of Human Rights and of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on forum duplication in international human rights litigation. While specific inadmissibility clauses have been included in both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a view to preventing multiple human rights petitions in relation to the same matter, their respective scopes differ. Moreover, the applicable normative framework has led to important—and diverging—judicial developments in Strasbourg and in Geneva, which may be of great significance in human rights practice and therefore deserve to be thoroughly addressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document