ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/126/D/2401/2014

Communication

2401/2014

Submission: 2014.03.07

View Adopted: 2019.07.26

V.D. v. Seychelles

Allegation of a violation of the right to be elected, failure to exhaust domestic remedies and substantiate the case

Substantive Issues
  • Participation in public affairs
  • Right to be elected
Relevant Articles
  • Article 25
Full Text

Facts

The author in this case was a national of the Seychelles, and claimed a violation under article 25 of the Covenant owing to potential procedural irregularities in standing for election. The author notes that he presented all documents required for nomination under the domestic Election Act, however was allocated a late "time slot" and subsequently notified that he was disqualified as failed to comply with certain "requirements" of the Act, without any available time left to challenge the determination.

The finding was challenged in the domestic Consitutional Court, which ruled that the disqualification had been unlawful as the author had not had the chance to rectify his non-compliance with the election procedure. The Court however did not provide restitution - and on appeal, noted that the right of all persons in the territory to have elections held on the set date superceded the right of the author to be elected.

The author filed an individual communication with the Committee on the basis that his right to be elected under article 25 has been violated, and additionally that the State failed to provide him with an effective remedy.

Admissibility

  • Recalling that applicants must exhaust all domestic remedies, the Committee noted that the author did not provide any information on whether he raised claims of discrimination with respect to his time slot allocated at the domestic level. On this basis, the Committee found this part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. 
  • On the question of the right to an effective remedy regarding the alleged violation of article 25, the Committee recalled its jurisprudence noting that it is for the organs of the State party to evaluate the facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such a determination was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. In this case, the Committee noted that the provisions of the Elections Act applied equally to all candidates in the election and it considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the domestic courts amounted to such arbitrariness or a denial of justice. The Committee therefore declared the author’s claims under article 25 of the Covenant insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

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