ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/128/D/2057/2011

Communication

2057/2011

Submission: 2010.05.17

View Adopted: 2020.03.13

V. P. v. Belarus

Claim of a violation of the right to a fair trial but lack of substantiation of the claim makes it inadmissible

Substantive Issues
  • Effective remedy
  • Exhaustion of domestic remedies
  • Fair trial
Relevant Articles
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
Full Text

Facts

The author was a member of the United Civic Party and its president of the Gomel Regional Division, in 2010 the author decided to launch an appeal against the Council of Deputies as they had decided not to include the party representatives in the regional District Commission. Once this appeal was launched, it was rejected by the court of first instance and furtherly rejected by higher courts as they did not have the authority to override the decision of the first instance in this regard. The author complained that his right to have a fair trial under article 14, read in conjunction with articles 2(2) and (3) of the Covenant have been violated. 

Admissibility

The Committee found that the author had failed to substantiate how his own individual rights had been violated by the court of first instance. Thus, the Committee declares the communication as inadmissible based on 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