Follow-up to Views on Individual Communications: Unprecedented improvement in the procedure for Follow-up to Individual Communications

Overview 109 session - Follow-up to Individual Communications

Related Materials

On 25 October 2013, Yuji Iwasawa, the Rapporteur on Follow-up to Individual Communications presented his intermediate report (CCPR/C109/3) on the implementation of the Recommendations adopted by the Committee in relation to Individual Communications. The significantly revised format of this report follows the methodology that has been used for the reports on follow-up to Concluding Observations. It also introduced a similar system of evaluation based on grading the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations, which should allow a clear assessment of the measures taken by the State. Several Committee members welcomed this new development in their work on follow-up to Individual Communications, but at the same time looked forward to further refinements of the methodology.

Sixteen State parties had provided the Committee with information in relation to individual communications (Algeria, Azerbaijan, Canada, Colombia, France, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Paraguay, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Venezuela). Among the positive developments highlighted in the report, it is worth mentioning the steps taken by Canada in relation to the case of Thuraisamay (1912/2009), a Sri Lankan facing return to his country of origin. The Committee considered that the regularisation procedure undertaken by the Canadian authorities adequately responded to its concerns and graded the response “A”, indicating that the actions taken were largely satisfactory. More troublingly, there were several cases (including some very old ones) in relation to which the Rapporteur noted no progress. Such cases include Avadanov v. Azerbaijan (1633/2007); Baustista de Arellana v. Colombia (563/1993); Moidunov and Zhumabeaeva v. Kyrgyzstan (1756/2008); Raihman v. Latvia (1621/2007); and Asensi v. Paraguay (1407/2005). The Committee applied grade C to each of these cases, indicating that it considered the implementation of its recommendations unsatisfactory and that the victims had not received reparation.

The CCPR Centre will carry out a more detailed analysis of the report of the Rapporteur on Follow-up to Individual Communications when it is made public in mid-November 2013.

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese