26 January 1978

 

Communication No. 22/1977

 
     

human rights committee

  Third Session  
  16 January 3 February 1978  
     
     

o. e.

 

v.

e.

     
     
 

DECISION

 
     
  Return Home
 
 
     
     
 
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas v. Mavrommatis (Cyprus)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Luben G. Koulishev (Bulgaria), Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway)
ACTING RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador)
MEMBERS: Mr. Mohamed Ben-Fadhel (Tunisia), Mr. Ole Mogens Espersen (Denmark), Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Manouchehr Ganji (Iran), Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Haissam Kelani (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Fernando Mora Rojas (Costa Rica), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Fulgence Seminega (Rwanda), Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky (Canada), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany).

Mr. Diego Uribe Vargas (Colombia) was unable to attend the third session.
   
PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1978.01.25_OE_v_S.htm
   
Citation: O. E. v. S, Comm. No. 22/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 5 (HRC 1978)
Publications: Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selection Decision under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)
 
     
 
 
     
 

Transmittal to State party under rule 91--Request for information on admissibility and available remedies--Interim measures--Request that alleged victim not be expelled by State party--Request to author for substantiation, and information on exhaustion of domestic remedies

 

The Human Rights Committee decides:

 

(a)        That the communication be transmitted to the State party concerned under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure requesting from the State party information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. If the State party contends that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it is requested to give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in this case. If the State party objects that the same matter is already being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, it should give details including information on the stage reached in those proceedings; (b) That the State party be asked to inform the Committee whether deportation or extradition of the alleged victim to country X is being contemplated;

 

(c)        That the State party be informed, in accordance with rule 86 of the provisional rules of procedure, of the view of the Committee that pending further consideration of the case, the alleged victim, having sought refuge in S, should not be handed over or expelled to country X;

 

(d)       That the author be requested to furnish information (i) In substantiation of the claim that each of the articles 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, referred to by him, has been violated, (ii) On any steps taken by the alleged victim or on his behalf to exhaust domestic remedies;

 

(e)        That the State party and the author be informed that their information and observations should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks of the date of the request;

 

(f)        That the Secretary-General transmit any information or observations received to the other party as soon as possible to enable the other party to comment thereon if it so wishes. Any such comments should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within four weeks of the date of the transmittal;

 

(g)        That the text of this decision be communicated to the State party and the author of the communication.
 
     

 

 

home | terms & conditions | copyright | about

 

Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.