| |
The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,
Meeting on 30 March 2009,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 1382/2005, submitted
to the Human Rights Committee on behalf by Mr. Mukhammed Salikh under the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by
the author of the communication, and the State party,
Adopts the following:
VIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
1.1 The author of the communication is Mukhammed Salikh (Salai Madaminov),[FN1]
an Uzbek national born in 1949, leader of the opposition 'Erk' party of
Uzbekistan, who was granted refugee status in Norway. The communication was
submitted on his behalf by Salima Kadyrova, an Uzbek lawyer. While she does
not invoke a violation of any specific provisions of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the facts of the communication
appear to raise issues under article 14 thereof. The Optional Protocol
entered into force for the State party on 28 December 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] Mukhammed Salikh is a pen-name of the author, used interchangeably
with the name Salai Madaminov, under which the author was registered at
birth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 On 9 August 2005, the Special Rapporteur for New Communications and
Interim Measures decided, on behalf of the Committee, that the admissibility
of this communication should be examined separately from the merits.
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR
2.1 On 17 November 2000, the Supreme Court sentenced the author in absentia
to 15 ½ years' imprisonment, on charges related to the terrorist bombings in
Tashkent on 16 February 1999. The charges, trial and sentence allegedly were
all politically motivated and linked to his participation in the first
presidential elections in Uzbekistan in December 1991, when he was competing
with the current incumbent, President Islam Karimov. Neither the author
himself nor his family were notified of the criminal proceedings against
him. The charges were based on the testimony of several other accused who
later claimed, during their respective trials, to have been subjected to
torture. The author lists the names of four persons who were forced to
testify against him during the preliminary investigation and in court:
Zayniddin Askarov, Mamadali Makhmudov, Mukhammad Begzhanov and Rashid
Begzhanov. He submits a copy of Askarov's statement delivered on 26 November
2003 during a press conference organized by the National Security Service at
Tashkent prison. Allegedly, Askarov used a temporary absence of the National
Security Service officer from the press conference room to confess that he
gave false testimony against the author, on a promise from the Minister of
Internal Affairs that six imprisoned mullas would be spared the death
penalty. Reportedly, these mullas were nonetheless executed. Askarov offered
public apologies to the author for wrongly accusing him of having links
with, and sponsoring, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).
2.2 In August 2003, the author contacted Salima Kadyrova, a member of the
Bar in Samarkand, and on 19 August 2003, authorized her to act on his behalf
for an appeal against his conviction. She submits that to this day, no one
has accepted to defend the author in Uzbekistan, out of fear of being
persecuted by the authorities. Kadyrova obtained a writ and on an
unspecified date filed an application with the Chairperson of the Supreme
Court, for access to the author's criminal case file and a copy of his
judgment and sentence. She was told that consideration of her application
would take a week. She returned a week later and was told that she had to
provide a written request from her client for access to the files. On an
unspecified date, she reapplied to the Supreme Court, this time with a power
of attorney dated 19 August 2003, signed by the author under his penname and
certified by a Notary Public in Norway, where the author had by then been
granted asylum. By letter from the Supreme Court of 26 September 2003, Ms.
Kadyrova was informed that the power of attorney did not fulfil the
requirements of article 1, part 5, of the Law 'On Notaries' of 26 December
1996, to the effect that notary actions abroad should be performed by
consular officers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Counsel submits that the
law does not require the power of attorney to be certified by a notary and
refers to articles 4 and 7 of the Law "On the guarantees of attorney's
activity and social protection" of 25 December 1998. That law specifies that
it is prohibited to request any authorization, except for a writ confirming
an attorney's power to act in a case and an attorney's identity card, and to
establish other obstacles to an attorney's activity.
2.3 On 7 October 2003, counsel received a second power of attorney from the
author, again signed by him under his penname and certified by a Notary
Public from Oslo. [FN2] On an unspecified date, she reapplied to the court
for access to the author's file and a copy of judgment and sentence. On this
occasion, she was told that consideration of her application would be
postponed for an 'indefinite period'. Not having received an answer after
several months, she again applied formally to the Chairperson of the Supreme
Court on 2 December 2003; again, she received no reply. On an unspecified
date, she wrote to the Chairperson of the Parliament. On 17 December 2003,
she was informed that her letter had been forwarded to the Supreme Court. On
19 March 2004, and without having a copy either of his indictment or of his
judgment, the author applied to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court
requesting to initiate a supervisory review of his unlawful conviction by
the Supreme Court.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] The difference between the first and the second letters is in the
duration of their validity - two and three years respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Counsel states that the author currently does not have any documents or
information about the details of the case against him, nor his conviction in
absentia. The authorities' refusal to let her access the author's files
violates his right, guaranteed under article 30 of the Uzbek Constitution,
to have access to documents affecting a citizen's rights and freedoms. She
invokes provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that were violated by the
State party in her client's case, including the right to defence, the right
to appeal the unlawful actions of an investigator, but does not provide any
further substantiation of these claims. Her client continues to live in
exile and cannot return to Uzbekistan because of this unlawful conviction.
THE COMPLAINT
3. Counsel does not invoke a violation of any specific provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the State party.
However, the facts as submitted appear to raise issues under article 14 of
the Covenant.
STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS
4.1 On 10 June 2005, the State party challenged the admissibility of the
communication on the basis of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional
Protocol. It submits that Madaminov's sentence was not appealed on cassation
by any of the parties listed in article 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code
as authorized to file such appeal: the convicted person, his lawyer, legal
representative, the victims and their representatives.
4.2 The State party argues that counsel never proved Madaminov's
authorization to act on his behalf, as required under article 50 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. On 22 September 2003, she submitted a request to
access Madaminov's case file but did not attach to this request any
authorization signed by Madaminov, who by then lived abroad. On an
unspecified date, she was informed of the necessity to present written
authorization from her client. On 26 September 2003, she submitted another
request for access to the case file and attached a photocopy of the power of
attorney, written on behalf of one Mukhammed Salikh and referring to a
passport allegedly issued to him by the Oslo police on 24 August 1999.
According to the file, the name of the person convicted is Salai Madaminov,
an Uzbek citizen. No document in the case file suggests that Salai Madaminov
has changed his first or second names, renounced Uzbek citizenship and
acquired the Norwegian. Counsel did not submit Mukhammed Salikh's ID nor any
document proving that the person on whose behalf the power of attorney was
issued and Salai Madaminov are indeed the same person. On an unspecified
date, she was informed in writing of the requirements of article 1 of the
Law "On Notaries", according to which notary actions abroad should be
performed by consular officers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. According to
article 91 of this Law, documents prepared abroad with the participation of
government officials of other countries are accepted by the notary only
after their legalization by the competent office in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
4.3 The author's case could be considered by the Presidium or Plenum of the
Supreme Court, provided that counsel or any other person authorized by law
to request a supervisory review of this criminal case present documents that
comply with the legal requirements. Complaint could also be considered by
the Ombudsman, who, under article 10 of the Law "On the Authorized Person of
the Oliy Mazhlis (Parliament) of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Human
Rights", may conduct her own investigations.
4.4 The State party contends that counsel's claims of a violation of the
Criminal Procedural Code in her client's case are unfounded, since she has
never been able to access his case file.
4.5 The State party notes that on 12 February 1993, criminal proceedings
against Salai Madaminov were instituted. He signed an undertaking not to
leave his place of residence without the investigator's permission.
Nonetheless, so as to elude criminal liability, he left Uzbekistan illegally
on 13 April 1993 and, went into hiding in Turkey. While living abroad, he
was involved in activities designed to overthrow the constitutional order of
Uzbekistan. On 16 February 1999, 16 people died and 128 were wounded in
Tashkent as a result of terrorist bombings.
4.6 Investigation into the bombings produced evidence of Madaminov's intent
forcibly to take over the government, and that he had contacted the leaders
of the terrorist organization IMU, one Yuldashev and one Khodzhiev. In
October 1998, Yuldashev sent two IMU members to Turkey, where Madaminov was
then living, who offered Salikh the post of President of a future Islamic
State of Uzbekistan if he facilitated raising of funds for the purchase of
arms and military equipment; Madaminov accepted. Information about
Madaminov's meetings and negotiations with IMU leaders was corroborated by
investigation files and testimonies of persons sentenced for their
participation in the terrorist bombings.
4.7 The criminal case against Madaminov was opened on the basis of
investigation files. Since Madaminov failed to appear in court, he was tried
in accordance with article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code [FN3] with the
participation of an attorney, one Kuchkarov, who was defending his rights in
court. Therefore, the State party submits, the requirements under the
Criminal Procedure Code were fully met. Representatives of international
human rights organizations, the OSCE, foreign embassies and mass media also
attended the trial as observers. On 17 November 2000, the Judicial Chamber
of the Supreme Court sentenced Madaminov, among other defendants, to 15 ½
years imprisonment on a total of 13 charges, including premeditated murder
and terrorism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads:
Examination of a criminal case by the court of first instance takes place in
defendant's presence, the defendant's appearance in court is compulsory. If
the defendant fails to appear in court, examination of a criminal case
should be postponed, except for the cases envisaged in part three of the
present article. The court has a right to enforce the presence of the
defendant who failed to appear in court, as well as a right to impose or
change the defendant's restraint measure.
Examination of a case in the absence of a defendant is allowed only if the
defendant is outside of the territory of Uzbekistan and fails to appear in
court, and his absence does not prevent the court from establishing truth on
the case; or when the defendant was removed from the court room on the basis
of article 272 of the present Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS ON STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS
5.1 On 9 February 2006, the author refuted the State party's challenge of
the identity of Salai Madaminov and Mukhammed Salikh, and provided copy of a
diplomatic passport of the (former) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Uzbek Soviet
Socialist Republic on 26 April 1990. There, he is identified as "Madaminov
Salai (Moukhammad Salikh)". He provided copy of the court judgment
concerning Rashid Begzhanov, Mamadali Makhmudov, Mukhammad Begzhanov, given
by the Tashkent Regional Court on 18 August 1999. In this judgment, the
author is referred to as "Madaminov Salai (Moukhammad Salikh)". He added
that since 1971 he has published more than 20 books in Uzbekistan under his
pen-name, Mukhammed Salikh. [FN4] He further confirmed the power of
authority that he gave to Salima Kadyrova in 2003 to act on his behalf. The
author reiterated that the criminal case against him was fabricated and
referred to evidence he presented in his initial submission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] The author submitted copies of cover pages of two books published by
the state publishing houses of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic where his
name appears as "Mukhammed Salikh (Madaminov Salai)".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 By letter of 17 February 2006, counsel challenged the State party's
claim about non-exhaustion of available domestic remedies. She stated that
the subject matter of the complaint to the Committee, on behalf of her
client, was exactly that she was prevented by the State party from
submitting an appeal for supervisory review of the author's conviction by
not granting her access to the author's case file and a copy of his
sentence. She denied that she had not proven the author's authorization for
her to act on his behalf, as required by article 50 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The State party itself mentioned that she applied for access
to the author's case file twice, whereas in fact she submitted six requests
without ever receiving a positive reply from the Supreme Court. She also
referred to article 135 of the Civil Code, according to which a power of
attorney should be either in a simple written form or it should be certified
by a notary. She referred again to article 7 of the Law "On the guarantees
of attorney's activity and social protection" that required only that a writ
confirming an attorney's permit to participate to a case and an attorney's
identity card were required for an attorney's participation in a case.
5.3 Counsel invoked article 22 of the Uzbek Constitution, which guarantees
legal protection by the Republic of Uzbekistan of all its citizens on the
territory of Uzbekistan and abroad. She submitted that there is no
information that Salikh ever renounced his Uzbek citizenship and, therefore,
he should be able to exercise his right to avail himself of the services of
an attorney. She denied that the author's criminal case could have been
considered by the Presidium or Plenum of the Supreme Court and argued that,
in order for her to submit an appeal for supervisory review, she should be
granted access to the criminal case file. She repeated that that she was
deliberately prevented from accessing her client's file.
5.41Regarding the State party's claim that individual human rights
complaints can be also considered by the Ombudsman, counsel referred to
article 9 of the Law invoked by the State party that prohibits Ombudsman to
consider the issues falling in the court's jurisdiction.
5.5 As to the State party's challenge of the identity of Salai Madaminov and
Mukhammed Salikh, counsel recalled that the sentence of the Tashkent
Regional Court of 18 August 1999 and the decision of the Supreme Court of 25
October 1999 on case No.03-1035k-99 mention her client as "Madaminov Salai (Moukhammed
Salikh)". To be able to list both names, the investigator was required to
verify the person's identity, under article 98 of the Uzbek Criminal
Procedure Code.
5.6 As to the legality of the author's conviction in absentia, counsel
referred to part 1 of article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which
states that "the defendant's appearance in court is compulsory". The State
party's reference to the exception from this rule (part 3 of article 410),
allowing consideration of the case if the defendant is not present on the
territory of Uzbekistan, is subject to the procedural guarantees of article
420 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the absence of one of the defendants,
the court should have suspended consideration of the case with regard to the
missing defendant.
DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY
6.1 During its eighty-eighth session, on 9 October 2006, the Committee
considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted the State
party's argument that, on one hand, Mukhammed Salikh, the author of the
present communication, and, on the other hand, Salai Madaminov, a person
whose conviction by a court of the State party was challenged before the
Committee, are not identical. The Committee observed, however, that the
author has produced copies of an ID issued by the State party's predecessor
(the former USSR), and of judgments issued by the State party's own courts,
where both names - Mukhammed Salikh and Salai Madaminov - were
simultaneously used to identify the author. Given this situation, the
Committee considered that the identity of the author should not be
questionable to the State party, and concluded that it was not precluded
from examining the communication on this ground.
6.2 Furthermore, the Committee noted that the State party had challenged the
admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,
as the author's conviction had not been appealed to a higher tribunal and to
the Ombudsman. Counsel in turn argued that she could not access her client's
files and appeal his conviction with any reasonable prospect of success, as
the State party deliberately prevented her from accessing her client's file,
without which she would be unable to submit an appeal for supervisory
review. Contrary to the applicable law, she was requested to present a power
of attorney from the author authorizing her to act on his behalf that had to
be certified by consular staff of the Republic of Uzbekistan. As this
requirement was not provided for by law, the Committee did not consider it
to be a bar to admissibility.
6.3 The Committee recalled its jurisprudence that article 5, paragraph 2(b),
did not oblige complainants to exhaust domestic remedies that offer no
reasonable prospect of success. [FN5 ]It reaffirmed that applications to an
Ombudsman institution did not constitute an "effective remedy" for the
purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. [FN6]
The Committee noted that the facts of the communication appeared to raise
issues under article 14 of the Covenant, and considered that the author had
exhausted domestic remedies, for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(b)
of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, the Committee declared the
communication admissible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN5] Communication No. 594/1992, Phillip Irving v. Trinidad and Tobago,
Views adopted on 20 October 1998, para.6.4.
[FN6] Communication No. 334/1988, Michael Bailey v. Jamaica, Views adopted
on 31 March 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE MERITS
7.1 On 27 December 2006, the State party claimed that the decision on
admissibility adopted by the Committee in the present communication was
unfounded. It reiterated that Madaminov was tried in accordance with article
410, part 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code (participation of a defendant in
court proceedings), because he had failed to appear in court. An attorney
defending his rights participated in the pre-trial investigation and in
court; therefore, Madaminov's right to defence was not violated. The State
party recapitulated its earlier arguments, summarised in paragraph 4.2 above
and added that under article 66 of the Law "On Notaries", a notary attests
to the authenticity of a copy of a document's duplicate, provided that the
duplicate itself was either duly attested by a notary or issued by the same
entity that produced the original document. In the latter case, a duplicate
should be issued on that entity's official letterhead, stamped and duly
contain a reference mark, indicating that the original document was being
kept by the entity in question itself. The State party drew the Committee's
attention to the fact that a writ obtained by Madaminov's counsel stated
that it was issued to allow her to get access to the criminal case file of
Mukhammed Salikh.
7.2 The State party further submitted that Madaminov's counsel did not
comply with the requirements of the Law "On Notaries", even though under
article 3 of the Law "On Legal Profession ('advocatura')" of 27 December
1996, a lawyer called to the bar undertakes strictly to comply with the
Constitution and the laws of Uzbekistan. Moreover, under article 7 of the
same Law, attorneys are obliged to comply with the requirements of the law
in force in Uzbekistan in the exercise of their professional duties.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE MERITS
8.1 On 9 January 2007, the author commented on the State party's
observations. He stated that the State party's reliance on article 410, part
3, of the Criminal Procedure Code in justification for having conducted his
trial in absentia is misguided, because part 1 of the same article makes the
defendant's appearance in the court of first instance compulsory. On the
State party's argument that 'an attorney defending Madaminov's rights
participated in the pre-trial investigation and in court', the author
claimed that an attorney who was merely present at, rather than
'participated in', the court proceedings, without either a writ or a power
of attorney from his part, could not have properly defended his interests in
court. The author submitted that an attorney could not be present at the
court proceedings in the absence of his/her client.
8.2 With regard to the State party's claims that counsel failed to provide a
document that would prove that she had been authorised by Madaminov to act
on his behalf in the supervisory review instance and that a writ referred to
the name of 'Mukhammed Salikh', the author reiterated counsel's argument
that she did comply with the requirements of article 50 of the Criminal
Procedure Code by presenting a writ, confirming that she had been authorised
to act on his behalf. The author added that the Committee has already
established at the admissibility stage that his identity should not have
been questionable in any way to the State party. He affirmed that he had
never renounced his Uzbek citizenship, had never been a citizen of Norway
and had never submitted an application to obtain one. A travel document
issued by the Norwegian police on 24 August 1999 did not endow him with the
citizenship of Norway and, therefore, he should be entitled to benefit from
all the rights guaranteed to a citizen of Uzbekistan by the Constitution and
other laws.
8.3 Finally, the author argued that the State party's reference to the Law
"On Notaries" was irrelevant to his case, because neither the issuance of a
writ, nor the requests to the Supreme Court and the Parliament to grant
access to his criminal case file, needed any attestation by a notary.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS
9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in
the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as
provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
9.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party's observations of 27
December 2006, which challenge the admissibility of the communication. It
considers that the arguments raised by the State party are not of such
nature as to require the Committee to review its admissibility decision,
owing in particular to the lack of new relevant information, such as a copy
of the judgment and sentence of the Supreme Court of 17 November 2000
concerning the author, as well as a copy of the trial transcript. The
Committee therefore sees no reason to review its admissibility decision.
9.3 The Committee proceeds to consideration of the case on the merits. It
notes that although neither the author nor his counsel have invoked
violations of any specific provisions of the Covenant by the State party,
their allegations and the facts as submitted to the Committee appear to
raise issues under article 14, paragraph 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e), of the
Covenant.
9.4 In the first place, the Committee must examine whether the proceedings
on the basis of which the author of the communication was sentenced to 15 ½
years' imprisonment disclose any breach of rights protected under the
Covenant. Under article 14, paragraph 3, everyone is entitled to be tried in
his presence and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance.
This provision and other requirements of due process enshrined in article 14
cannot be construed as invariably rendering proceedings in absentia
impermissible, irrespective of the reasons for the accused person's absence.
[FN7] Indeed, proceedings in absentia may in some circumstances (for
instance, when the accused person, although informed of the proceedings
sufficiently in advance, declines to exercise his right to be present) be
permissible in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
Nevertheless, the effective exercise of the rights under article 14
presupposes that the necessary steps should be taken to inform the accused
of the charges against him and notify him of the proceedings [FN8] (article
14, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant). Judgment in absentia requires that,
notwithstanding the absence of the accused, all due notifications has been
made to inform him or the family of the date and place of his trial and to
request his attendance. Otherwise, the accused, in particular, is not given
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (article 14,
paragraph 3 (b)), cannot defend himself through legal assistance of his own
choosing (article 14, paragraph 3 (d)) nor does he have the opportunity to
examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf (article 14, paragraph
3 (e)). [FN9]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN7] Communication No. 16/1977, Mbenge v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March
1983, paragraph 14.1.
[FN8] Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23
August 2007, paragraph 31.
[FN9] Supra n.7, paragraph 1 4.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.5 The Committee acknowledges that there must be certain limits to the
efforts that can reasonably be expected of the competent authorities with a
view to establishing contact with the accused. With regard to the present
communication, however, those limits need not be spelled out, for the
following reasons. The State party has not challenged the author's
contention that neither he nor his family were notified of the criminal
proceedings against the author; and that an attorney, one Kuchkarov, who, as
argued by the State party, defended his rights in court, was not, in fact,
the attorney of his own choosing. In addition, no indication has been given
by the State party about any steps taken by its authorities to transmit to
the author the summonses for his appearance in court. In this regard, the
Committee regrets that the State party has not complied with its request to
make available to it a copy of the judgment in the author's case, as well as
a copy of the trial transcript - both are documents that could have shed
light upon the issue at stake. These factors, taken together, lead the
Committee to conclude that the State party failed to make sufficient efforts
with a view to informing the author about the impending court proceedings,
thus preventing him from preparing his defence or otherwise participating in
the proceedings. In the view of the Committee, therefore, the State party
has violated the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (a), 3 (b), 3
(d) and 3 (e), of the Covenant.
9.6 Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not
necessary to examine issues relating to the supervisory review process.
10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of the
author's rights under articles 14, paragraph 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (d) and 3 (e),
of the Covenant.
11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the State
party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy,
including adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation
to prevent similar violations in the future.
12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the
State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine
whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant
to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to
all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and
enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee
wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about
the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party
is also requested to publish the Committee's Views.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]
Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
|
|