Communication alleging restrictions on the right to freedom of expression of the author- violation found

Facts

The author, a national of Uzbekistan born in 1964, applied for permission to hold a two-hour-long demonstration (individual picket) on 26 February 2013 in front of the Department of Bailiffs in Tashkent. According to the national legislation, permission to hold a demonstration should be issued by the Office of the Mayor, not by the police. The author claimed that the transfer of his request was to threaten him to withdraw his request of holding a picket. He was later informed over the telephone that his request had been rejected, and was provided with no written decision by the municipal department.    

The author appealed against the response to the Tashkent City Court, which transmitted his appeal to the head of the Mirzo-Ulugbeksk Inter-District Court, which in turn rejected the appeal. The author then appealed the decision of the Inter-District Court, which was again rejected by the court. His next appeal under the supervisory review procedure was also rejected. The author ultimately filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which also dismissed his appeal.

The author claimed that the State party had violated his rights to freedom of peaceful assembly under article 21 of the Covenant. Although the author does not specifically invoke article 19 of the Covenant, the communication appeared to raise issues under that article as well.

Admissibility

The Committee noted the author’s allegations of violation of his right to freedom of assembly under article 21  lacked sufficient elements under an “assembly” within the meaning of the article, for the purposes of admissibility, and declared this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. However, the Committee concluded that the issues raised by the author issues under article 19 of the Covenant had been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.

Merits

The Committee further observed that the State party had failed to provide any concrete information as to why the restrictions imposed on the author were necessary for maintaining security as required under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Furthermore, the State party failed to demonstrate that the measures selected were the least intrusive in nature or proportionate to the interest that it sought to protect. The Committee considered that, in the circumstances of the present case, the limitations imposed on the author were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. It, therefore, concluded that the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant have been violated.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the author with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

 

Implementation

Deadline: 18th September 2021

 

By Sugandha Sawhney