|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah
(Mauritius)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Joseph A. L. Cooray (Sri Lanka), Mr. Vojin
Dimitrijevic (Yugoslavia), Mr. Alejandro Serrano Caldera (Nicaragua)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Fausto Pocar (Italy)
MEMBERS: Mr. Francisco Jose Aguilar Urbina (Costa Rica), Mr. Nisuke
Ando (Japan), Miss Christine Chanet (France), Mr. Omran El Shafei
(Egypt), Mr. Janos Fodor Hungary, Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins (United
Kingdom), Mr. Andreas V. Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Joseph A.
Mommersteeg (Netherlands), Mr. Rein A. Myullerson (Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics), Mr. Birame Ndiaye (Senegal), Mr. Julio Prado
Vallejo (Ecuador), Mr. S. Amos Wako (Kenya), Mr. Bertill Wennergren
(Sweden)
The thirty-sixth session was
attended by all the members of the Committee except Mr. Mommersteeg;
Mr. Aguilar Urbina, Miss Chanet and Messrs. Cooray, Mavrommatis and
Wako attended only part of that session. |
|
|
PermaLink: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1989.07.14_A_newspaper_publishing_company_v_Trinidad_and_Tobago.htm |
|
|
Citation: |
Publishing company v. Trin. and
Tobago, Comm. 360/1989, U.N. Doc. A/44/40, at 307 (HRC 1989) |
Publication: |
Report of the Human Rights
Committee, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/44/40,
Annex XI, sect. L, at 307 (Sep.29, 1989); Office of the U.N. High
Comm'r for Human Rights, Selected Decisions of the Human Rights
Committee under the Optional Protocol, Vol. III, at 95, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/OP/3, U.N. Sales No. E.02.XIV.1 (2002)
|
|
|
|
The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,
Meeting on 14 July 1989,
Adopts the following:
DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY
1. The communication, dated 2 March 1989, is submitted by a newspaper
company registered in Trinidad. The company claims to be the victim of a
violation by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago of articles 2, 14 and 19
of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It is
represented by counsel.
2.1 The managing director of the company, Mr. D. C., states that the company
publishes a bi-weekly and a weekly newspaper, with wide circulation in
Trinidad and throughout the Caribbean. As the material necessary for the
publication of the paper has to be imported, the company requires the
permission of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago to purchase the
foreign currency needed for payment. Every year the Central Bank determines
the allocation of foreign exchange for newspapers published in the country,
usually at a level which would allow the companies to purchase sufficient
raw material for publication purposes. It is stated that in 1988 the Central
Bank allocated to the company an amount of foreign exchange wholly
insufficient for the purpose of maintaining its annual production and
guaranteeing the publication of the newspapers; allocation for other
publishers are said to have been sufficient. The company unsuccessfully
sought approval of the same amount of foreign exchange allocated to other
publishers.
2.2 On 27 April 1988, the company requested the grant of a supplementary
allocation from the Central Bank, which was refused. On 13 July 1988, it
commenced a Constitutional notion in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago
under section 14 of the Constitution, alleging that "the Central Bank acted
as arm of the State and directly affected the supply of newsprint and
accessories of the company, thus violating an integral part of the freedom
of the press, freedom of expression and the right to express political
views". It is submitted that the newspapers published by the company have
been critical of the policies pursued by the present Government of Trinidad,
which is in power since December 1986 and that as a consequence the company
has been discriminated against. While the High Court deemed the case to be
urgent, it heard it on several separate days during the period from
September to December 1988, when it reserved its judgment. Since that day,
the High Court has failed to produce a judgment. On December 1988, the
company reiterated its request to the Central Bank for a supplementary
allocation of foreign exchange. This was again denied. According to the
company's director, the allocation obtained only enables the company to
sustain the production and the publication of its newspapers through the
first quarter of 1989.
2.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it
is submitted that there are no effective remedies within the meaning of
article 2 of the Covenant, since the High Court has failed to act
expeditiously. It is stated that the matter has not been submitted for
examination under another procedure of international investigation or
settlement. [FNa]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FNa] The Secretariat has ascertained that the same matter has not been
submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication the Human
Rights Committee must, pursuant rule 87 of its provisional rules of
procedure, ascertain whether or not it is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant.
3.2 The present communication is submitted on behalf of a company
incorporated under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. While counsel has
indicated that Mr. D. C., the company's managing director, has been duly
"authorized to make the complaint on behalf of the company", it is not
indicated whether and to what extent his individual rights under the
Covenant have been violated by the events referred to in the communication.
Under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, only individuals may submit a
communication to the Human Rights Committee. A company incorporated under
the laws of a State party to the Optional Protocol, as such, has no standing
under article 1, regardless of whether its allegations appear to raise
issues under the Covenant.
4. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) The communication is inadmissible.
(b) This decision shall be communicated to the representative of the alleged
victim, and, for information, to the State party. |
|