M. A. v. S. Comm. No. 20/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 20 (HRC 1979)

			International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions

24 April 1979

Communication No. 20/1977

human rights committee

Sixth Session

9-27 April 1979

m. a.

DECISION

BEFORE:	CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas v. Mavrommatis (Cyprus) VICE-CHAIRMEN: Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Luben G. Koulishev (Bulgaria), Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador) RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius) MEMBERS: Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Mr. Manouchehr Ganji (Iran), Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Dejan Janca (Yugoslavia), Mr. Haissam Kelani (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan), Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky (Canada), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Diego Uribe Vargas (Colombia) All the members, except Mr. Ganji and Mr. Uribe Vargas, attended the sixth session of the Committee. Mr. Bouziri and Mr. Prado Vallejo attended only part of that session.

PermaLink:	https://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1979.04.24_MA_v_S.htm

Citation:	M. A. v. S. Comm. No. 20/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 20 (HRC 1979)
Publications:	Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 20, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)

[1] The author of the communication states that her husband was arrested in S. in September 1977, where he has allegedly been detained incommunicado, in spite of several attempts to remedy the situation, including the recourse of habeas corpus. The author claims that her husband is a victim of the prevailing situation in S. which allegedly reveals total disregard for the rights of persons arrested for political reasons. In this connection, the author lists several articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which have allegedly been violated in respect of her husband.

[2] In its observations concerning the admissibility of the communication the State party observes, inter alia, that the alleged victim is a "wanted person", who has been sought by the S authorities since 19 January 1975, and further, that the same matter has been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. ... In this connection the author of the communication has acknowledged that she has submitted her husbands case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

[3] The author was informed, in accordance with the Committee's decision of 26 July 1978, that the Human Rights Committee is precluded, under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, from considering a communication if the same matter is being examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. No response has been received from the author to the Committee's request that she clarify whether it is her intention to withdraw [the] case ... from the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights.

[4] On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the same matter is under examination by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and that, therefore, the communication is inadmissible pursuant to rule 90 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure.

[5] The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

[6] The communication is inadmissible.

Follow on X | Database Scope | Terms & Conditions | About