26 March 1985

Communication No. 183/1984; U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/24/D/183/1984

human rights committee

D. F.

v.

Sweden

DECISION

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY

1.1.      The author of the communication dated 9 April 1984, D. F., is a Swedish citizen, born in Austria on 23 April 1942. He claims to submit the communication on his own behalf and, it appears, on behalf of Arabs and Muslims (not further specified) who allegeally have con-stanfiy been the targets of discrimination and abuse in Sweden. The author submits that his communication reveals breaches by Sweden of the following articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: article 2, paragraph 1, article 5, paragraph 1, article 7, article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (d), (e) and (g), article 15, paragraph 1, article 17, article 25 (a), and article 26.

1.2.      As to steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, the author submits the text of a reply addressed to him on 12 July 1983 by the Office of the Attorney-General, in response to his request that the Attorney-General bring to trial those responsible for a cartoon which appeared in a Stockholm newspaper and which the author considered to reveal racial hatred against Arabs. The reply informed D. F. that the Attorney-General did not intend to take any action on the basis of his complaint.

2.         As it is obliged to do, under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Human Rights Committee has ascertained that D. F. has also filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights, which is pending for consideration before that body.

3.         The Human Rights Committee has carefully reviewed the communication submitted by D. F., including a dossier of various enclosures purporting to substantiate his claims. Apart from being barred from considering a communication, if the same matter is beeing examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (art. 5, para. 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol), such as the procedure implemented by the European Commission of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee has reached the conclusion that the communication does not in any manner substantiate the author's claim that he is personally a victim of any alleged violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, the communication does not reveal that the author has any authority to speak on behalf of other persons, whose rights he purports to protect.

4.         As the communication fails to fulfil the requirements of articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Human Rights Committee decides:

The communication is inadmissible.