| |
1. The authors of the
communication are Paul Arenz (first author) and Thomas Röder (second
author), as well as his wife Dagmar Röder (third author), all German
citizens and members of the "Church of Scientology" (Scientology). They
claim to be victims of violations by Germany [FN1] of articles 2, 18, 19,
22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. They are represented by counsel. Mr. Arenz passed away in February
2004.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The Covenant and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant entered into
force for the State Party on 23 March 1976 and 25 November 1993
respectively. Upon ratification of the Optional Protocol, the State Party
entered the following reservation: "The Federal Republic of Germany
formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) to the effect
that the competence of the Committee shall not apply to communications
a) which have already been considered under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement, or
b) by means of which a violation of rights is reprimanded having its origin
in events occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol
for the Federal Republic of Germany
c) by means of which a violation of article 26 of the [said Covenant] is
reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights
other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORS
2.1 On 17 December 1991, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), one of the
two major political parties in Germany, adopted resolution C 47 at its
National Party Convention, declaring that affiliation with Scientology is
not "compatible with CDU membership". This resolution still continues to
operate.
2.2 By letter of 22 September 1994, the chairman of the municipal branch of
the CDU at Mechernich (Northrhine-Westphalia), with the subsequent support
of the Federal Minister of Labour and regional party leader of the CDU in
Northrhine-Westphalia, asked the first author, a long standing CDU member,
to terminate his membership in the CDU with immediate effect by signing a
declaration of resignation, stating that he had learned of the first
author's affiliation with Scientology. When the latter refused to sign the
declaration, the Euskirchen CDU District Board decided, on 17 October 1994,
to initiate exclusion proceedings against him, thereby stripping him of his
rights as a party member until the delivery of a final decision by the CDU
party courts.
2.3 By letter of 24 October 1994, the President of the Euskirchen District
Party Court informed the first author that the Board had decided to expel
him from the CDU because of his membership in the Scientology Church and
that it had requested the District Party Court to take a decision to that
effect after providing him with an opportunity to be heard. After a hearing
was held on 2 December 1994, the District Party Court, on 6 December 1994,
informed the first author that it had confirmed the decision of the District
Board to expel him from the party. On 2 October 1995, the Northrhine-Westphalia
CDU State Party Court dismissed the first author's appeal. His further
appeal was rejected by the CDU Federal Party Court on 18 December 1996.
2.4 In separate proceedings, the second author, a long standing member and
later chairman of the Municipal Board of the CDU at Wetzlar-Mitte (Hessia),
as well as the third author, who had also been a CDU member for many years,
were expelled from the party by decision of 29 January 1992 of the CDU
District Association of Lahn-Dill. This decision was preceded by a campaign
against the second author's party membership, culminating in the
organization of a public meeting attended by approximately 1.000 persons, in
January 1992, during which the second author's reputation and professional
integrity as a dentist were allegedly slandered because of his Scientology
membership.
2.5 On 16 July 1994, the Middle Hessia District Party Court decided that the
expulsion of the second and third authors from the party was in conformity
with the relevant CDU statutes. The authors' appeals to the Hessia CDU State
Party Court and to the Federal Party Court at Bonn were dismissed on 26
January 1996 and, respectively, on 24 September 1996.
3.1 On 9 July 1997, the Bonn Regional Court (Landgericht Bonn) dismissed the
authors' legal action against the respective decisions of the CDU Federal
Party Tribunal, holding that these decisions were based on an objective
investigation of the facts, were provided by law, and complied with the
procedural requirements set out in the CDU statutes. As to the substance of
the complaint, the Court limited itself to a review of arbitrariness, owing
to the fundamental principle of party autonomy set out in article 21,
paragraph 1, [FN2] of the Basic Law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law reads: "Political parties
shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They
may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to
democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for
the sources and use of their funds."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 The Court considered the decisions of the Federal Party Tribunal not to
be arbitrary, given that the authors had acted in a manner contrary to
resolution C 47, which spelled out a party principle of the CDU, within the
meaning of article 10, paragraph 4, [FN3] of the Political Parties Act. The
resolution itself was not arbitrary or inconsistent with the party's
obligation to a democratic internal organization under article 21, paragraph
1, of the Basic Law, because numerous publications of Scientology and, in
particular, its founder Ron Hubbard objectively indicated a conflict with
the CDU's principles of free development of one's personality, tolerance and
protection of the socially disadvantaged. This ideology could, moreover, be
personally attributed to the authors, based on their self-identification
with the Organization's principles and their considerable financial
contributions to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] Article 10, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Political Parties Act read:
"(4) A member may only be expelled from the party if he or she deliberately
infringes the statutes or acts in a manner contrary to the principles or
discipline of the party and thus seriously impairs its standing. (5) The
arbitration court competent in accordance with the Code on Arbitration
Procedure shall decide on expulsion from the party. The right to appeal to a
higher court shall be granted. Reasons for the decisions shall be given in
writing. In urgent and serious cases requiring immediate action, the
executive committee of the party or a regional association may exclude a
member from exercising his rights pending the arbitration court's decision."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 Although the CDU was bound to respect the authors' basic rights to
freedom of expression and religious freedom, by virtue of its obligation to
a democratic internal organization, the restriction of these rights was
justified by the need to protect the autonomy and proper functioning of
political parties, which by definition could not represent all political and
ideological tendencies and were thus entitled to exclude opponents from
within the party. Taking into account that the authors had considerably
damaged the public image of the CDU and thereby decreased its electoral
support at the local level, the Court considered that their expulsion was
not disproportionate since it was the only means to restore party unity, the
authors being at liberty to found a new party. Lastly, the Court considered
that the authors could not invoke their rights under the European Convention
on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights vis-à-vis the CDU,
which was not bound by these treaties as a private association.
3.4 By judgment of 10 February 1998, the Cologne Court of Appeals dismissed
the authors' appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the Bonn Regional Court and
reiterating that political parties, by virtue of article 21, paragraph 1, of
the Basic Law, had to balance their right to party autonomy against the
competing rights of party members. In addition, the Court found that
political parties were entitled to adopt resolutions on the incompatibility
of their membership with parallel membership in another organization, in
order to distinguish themselves from competing parties or other associations
pursuing opposite objectives, unless such decisions are arbitrary. However,
Resolution C 47, as well as the decision of the Federal Party Tribunal that
the teachings of Scientology were incompatible with basic CDU principles,
was not considered arbitrary by the Court.
3.5 The Court emphasized that the authors had violated CDU principles, as
defined in resolution C 47, not merely because of their convictions, but
through the manifestation of these beliefs, as reflected by their membership
in Scientology, their adherence to the Organization's principles, the first
author's achievement of the status "clear" within Scientology, and the
second and third authors' substantial donations to the Organization.
3.6 The authors' constitutional rights to protection of their dignity, free
development of their personality, freedom of faith, conscience and creed,
freedom of expression and freedom of association, read in conjunction with
the constitutional principle of non-discrimination, as well as the
requirement of a democratic internal organization within political parties,
were superseded by the constitutionally protected interest of the party in
its proper functioning and the principle of party autonomy. The authors'
rights under the European Convention and the Covenant, both of which had
been transformed into domestic law, could offer no higher level of
protection.
3.7 In order to preserve its unity as well as its credibility, the CDU was
entitled to expel the authors who had exercised their constitutional rights
in a manner contrary to the party's principles and aims, thereby undermining
its credibility and persuasiveness. The Court concluded that the authors had
seriously impaired the public image of the CDU and that their expulsion was
therefore covered by article 10, paragraph 4, of the Political Parties Act
and was, moreover, proportionate to the aim pursued.
3.8 The authors' constitutional complaint was dismissed as manifestly
ill-founded by the Federal Constitutional Court on 28 March 2002. The Court
held that the lower courts were justified in limiting their review to the
question of whether the authors' expulsion from the CDU was arbitrary or
whether it violated their basic rights, as the autonomy of political parties
required State courts to abstain from interpreting and applying party
statutes or resolutions.
3.9 The Court was satisfied that the lower courts had struck an adequate
balance between the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of the CDU and the
authors' constitutional rights. In particular, it observed that the authors'
rights to freedom of opinion and to political participation had been
lawfully restricted by resolution C 47, which implemented the statutory
limitation contained in section 10, paragraph 4, of the Political Parties
Act. Similarly, the lower courts' decision to give the higher priority to
the autonomy of the CDU than to the authors' right to freedom of faith,
conscience and creed was not considered arbitrary by the Court.
THE COMPLAINT
4.1 The authors allege violations of their rights under articles 2,
paragraph 1, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Covenant, as a result of their
expulsion from the CDU, based on their affiliation with Scientology, and as
a result of the German courts' decisions confirming these actions. In the
authors' view, they were deprived of their right to take part in their
communities' political affairs, as article 25 of the Covenant protected the
right of "every citizen", meaning that "[n]o distinctions are permitted
between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status." [FN4] Their expulsion from
the CDU amounted to an unreasonable restriction of that right, in the
absence of any reference to a right of party autonomy in article 25.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] The authors quote the Committee's General Comment 25, at para. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 The authors recall the Committee's interpretation that the right to
freedom of association under article 22 of the Covenant is an essential
adjunct to the rights protected under article 25, since political parties
and membership in parties play a significant role in the conduct of public
affairs and the election process. This right and the authors' right to
freedom of expression under article 19, paragraph 2, of the Covenant had
been arbitrarily restricted by their expulsion from the CDU, given that the
Church of Scientology had not been banned by the Federal Constitutional
Court, and that none of its organs was subject to criminal proceedings or
had ever been convicted of any crime in Germany. Consequently, the authors'
activities as Scientologists were entirely lawful and, in fact, compatible
with CDU standards of conduct.
4.3 The authors submit that their exclusion from the CDU, upheld by the
German courts, also violated their rights under article 18 of the Covenant,
which had to be interpreted widely as encompassing freedom of thought on all
matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief. [FN5]
According to the Committee, the right to freedom of religion or belief was
not limited to traditional religions, but also protected newly established
and minority religions and beliefs. The authors outline the teachings of the
founder of the Church of Scientology, Ron Hubbard, and argue that the CDU
declaration form requiring them to publicly denounce their affiliation with
Scientology in order not to be excluded from the party operated as a
restriction, based on their religion or belief, on their right under article
25 to participate in public affairs and, as such, constituted coercion
designed to compel them to recant their beliefs, in violation of article 18,
paragraph 2, of the Covenant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN5] The authors refer to the Committee's General Comment 22, at para. 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4 By way of analogy, the authors refer to the Committee's concluding
observations on the fourth periodic report of Germany, where the Committee
expressed its concern "that membership in certain religious sects as such
may in some Länder of the State party disqualify individuals from obtaining
employment in the public service, which may in certain circumstances violate
the rights guaranteed in articles 18 and 25 of the Covenant." [FN6]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN6] Concluding Observations on the fourth report of Germany, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.73,
at para. 16.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 The authors contend that their expulsion from the CDU amounts to
discrimination, within the meaning of articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the
Covenant, since no other religious group had been singled out for exclusion.
Moreover, they submit that in a 1992 position paper justifying the adoption
of resolution C 47, the CDU blatantly mischaracterized the Church of
Scientology as being opposed to democracy and social outreach programmes,
while in reality Scientology promoted such values.
4.6 The authors claim that their exclusion from the CDU caused them serious
personal and economic injury. Thus, in the first author's case, the District
Administration of Euskirchen had denied him a business license on the ground
that he was a Scientologist and therefore "unreliable", whereas his bank had
cancelled his business account without stating any reasons. As a consequence
of the damage caused to his business, he had to sell his company to his son
who was not affiliated to Scientology. In the case of the second author, the
public campaign against him had severely injured his private dental
practice, which had moreover been "S-marked" by the Federal Labour Office,
thereby falsely identifying it as a "Scientology company".
4.7 The authors claim that they have exhausted all available domestic
remedies and that the same matter is not being and has not been examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
THE STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COMMUNICATION
5.1 By note verbale of 21 January 2003, the State party challenged the
admissibility of the communication, arguing that it is inadmissible ratione
temporis, on the basis of the German reservation concerning article 5,
paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, since the alleged violations of
the authors' rights had their origin in events occurring prior to the entry
into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic of Germany on
25 November 1993.
5.2 Although the decisions of the District Party Courts confirming the
authors' expulsion from the CDU dated from July and, respectively, December
1994, these decisions were based on resolution C 47, which had been adopted
by the National Party Convention on 17 December 1991. The State party argues
that, pursuant to its reservation, the decisive point of time for
determining the applicability of the Optional Protocol was not the alleged
violation as such but rather its origin "within the meaning of material or
perhaps also indirect cause(s)". This could be seen when comparing the
German reservation with the different wording of reservations entered by
other States parties to the Optional Protocol such as France, Malta and
Slovenia, which explicitly referred to violations resulting from acts,
omissions, developments or events which occurred after the entry into force
of the Optional Protocol for these States or from related decisions.
Furthermore, the authors' claims essentially focused on resolution C 47, in
the absence of any additional objections regarding the individual decisions
on their exclusion from the CDU, which merely implemented that resolution.
5.3 The State party submits that the communication is also inadmissible
ratione personae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, since it failed
to address violations by a State party, and argues that it cannot be held
responsible for expulsions of members from political parties, as these were
freely organized associations under private law. By reference to the
jurisprudence of the former European Commission of Human Rights, [FN7] the
State party submits that the only exception to this caveat would consist in
a violation of its obligation to protect the authors' rights under the
Covenant against unlawful interference by a third party. However, the
authors had failed to substantiate such a violation. In particular, the
State party argues that it had complied with its obligation under article 25
to protect the authors' right to take part in the conduct of public affairs,
through the enactment of article 10, paragraph 4, of the Political Parties
Act, which significantly restricted the autonomy of political parties to
expel members. The authors' rights under article 25 had not been unduly
restricted by their expulsion from the CDU, taking into account the German
courts' examination of whether the requirements set out in article 10,
paragraph 4, of the Political Parties Act, had been met, as well as the
authors' freedom to found a new party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN7] See European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 34614/1997,
Church of Scientology v. Germany, decision of 7 April 1997.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4 Lastly, the State party submits that the authors' claim under article 18
of the Covenant is inadmissible ratione materiae, because the "Scientology
Organi[z]ation" cannot be considered a religious or a philosophical
community, but an organization aimed at economic gains and acquisition of
power.
THE AUTHORS' COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S ADMISSIBILITY OBSERVATIONS
6.1 On 7 April 2003, the authors responded to the State party's submissions
on admissibility, submitting that the communication is admissible ratione
temporis, ratione personae and ratione materiae. They argue that their
claims relate to events which occurred after the entry into force of the
Optional Protocol for the State party in 1993, namely their expulsion from
the CDU, rather than to the adoption in 1991 of resolution C 47, which had
not been applied to initiate exclusion proceedings against them until 1994.
Subsidiarily, and by reference to the Committee's jurisprudence, the authors
claim that, in any event, the adoption of that resolution had continued
effects, resulting in their expulsion from the CDU in 1994.
6.2 The authors submit that the alleged violations are attributable to the
State party, because the State party (1) had failed to comply with its
obligation to ensure and to protect the authors rights under the Covenant;
(2) had interfered with those rights through official statements and actions
encouraging, directly or indirectly, the authors' expulsion from the CDU;
and (3) was responsible for the failure of the German courts properly to
interpret the extent of the authors' rights, as well as the State party's
corresponding obligations, under the Covenant.
6.3 In particular, the authors argue that the State party's violation of its
duty to protect their Covenant rights by failing to take any effective
measures to prevent their exclusion from the CDU constitutes an omission
attributable to the State party. In accordance with the Committee's
interpretation of article 25 of the Covenant, the State party was under a
duty to take positive steps to ensure that the CDU, in its internal
management, respects the free exercise by the authors of their rights under
the applicable provisions of article 25. Similarly, under articles 18, 19
and 22, the State party was required to adopt positive and effective
measures to protect the authors against discrimination by private persons or
organizations such as the CDU, either because of the close link between
those rights and the right under article 25 to take part in the conduct of
public affairs, or based on the general applicability of the principle of
non-discrimination contained in articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the
Covenant. The authors conclude that, despite the State party's broad
discretion regarding the implementation of these obligations, the adoption
of general legislation in form of the Political Parties Act, which failed to
prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief, falls short of meeting
these obligations.
6.4 In addition, the authors argue that the State party has supported and
encouraged the adoption by the CDU of resolution C 47 through numerous
statements and actions which were allegedly biased against Scientology, such
as a letter by the Federal Minister of Labour supporting the first author's
exclusion from the CDU, or by false statements and official publications
regarding the Church of Scientology.
6.5 In the authors' view, the limited review by the German courts of the
decisions of the CDU party courts failed to ensure respect for the authors'
rights under the Covenant. Thus, it was obvious that, while manifestations
of religion or beliefs, as well as the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression, may be subject to limitations, the "core" right to hold beliefs
or opinions was protected unconditionally and may not be restricted. Since
the CDU, throughout the domestic proceedings, presented no evidence to the
effect that the authors had made any statements or had engaged in any
activities in violation of the law or the party's standards of conduct, the
German courts had failed to apply these principles, thereby triggering the
State party's responsibility under the Covenant, which applied to all State
organs including the judiciary.
6.6 The authors stress the need to distinguish their case from the decision
of the European Commission of Human Rights in Church of Scientology v.
Germany (Application No. 34614/97), where the applicant had failed to
exhaust domestic remedies and to demonstrate that it had received specific
instructions from its members to act on their behalf. While conceding that
the Commission found that it could not entertain claims regarding violations
by private persons, including political parties, they emphasize that the
application did not involve any decisions rendered in domestic proceedings
and that certain rights, in particular the right to take part in public
affairs, were not protected under the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
6.7 The authors dismiss the State party's argument that they could found a
new party, stating that in most cases of discrimination a similar solution
can be proposed by the State, e.g. the foundation of an own company or of a
private school in cases of termination of employment or, respectively, of
non-admission to a school based on prohibited grounds of discrimination.
However, what the authors were seeking was not to engage in another party
representing their personal and, indeed, apolitical beliefs, but to enjoy
their right to join and participate in the political party of their choice
on an equal footing with any other German citizen.
6.8 Lastly, the authors reiterate that, according to the Committee, article
18 of the Covenant also applies to newly established religious groups and to
minority religions which may be the subject of hostility by a predominant
religious community. Moreover, the European Commission of Human Rights had
recognized the Church of Scientology as a religious community entitled to
raise claims under article 9, paragraph 1, of the European Convention in its
own capacity and as a representative of its members. In addition,
Scientology was officially recognized as a religion in several countries
[FN8] and as a religious or philosophical community in numerous judicial and
administrative decisions including decisions by German courts. Similarly,
the Federal Constitutional Court had held that the authors' exclusion from
the CDU was compatible with article 4, paragraph 1, [FN9] of the Basic Law:
"This holds true also when in favour of the plaintiffs it is assumed that
the Church of Scientology is, in any event, a philosophical community
(Weltanschauungsgemeinschaft) [...]."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN8] Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan and the United
States of America.
[FN9] Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law reads: "Freedom of faith and
of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed,
shall be inviolable."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. On 15 March 2004, counsel informed the Committee that the first author,
Mr. Paul Arenz, had died on 11 February 2004. However, it was his explicit
will that his communication be pursued after his death. Counsel submits a
document signed by the heirs authorizing him "to continue the representation
of the pending communication on behalf of our late husband and father Mr.
Paul Arenz with our knowledge and consent before the United Nations Human
Rights Committee." In addition to the explicit intent of the deceased, his
heirs declare their own interest in seeking rehabilitation and just
satisfaction, since the entire family had to suffer from the climate of
suspicion and intolerance among the population of their village resulting
from the first author's expulsion from the CDU. By reference to the
Committee's Views in Henry and Douglas v. Jamaica See communication No.
571/1994, Henry and Douglas v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 25 July 1996, para.
6.2., [FN10] counsel further submits that his original, broad authorization
to act on behalf of the first author gives him standing to continue his
representation in the present proceedings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN10] See communication No. 571/1994, Henry and Douglas v. Jamaica, Views
adopted on 25 July 1996, para. 6.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant.
8.2 The Committee has noted the author's allegations, as well as the State
party's challenge to the admissibility of the communication, namely that the
events complained of by the authors had their origin in the adoption by the
CDU National Party Convention of resolution C 47 on 17 December 1991, prior
to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Germany on 25 November
1993, and that the Committee's competence to examine the communication was
therefore precluded by virtue of the German reservation to article 5,
paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.
8.3 The Committee observes that the authors had not been personally and
directly affected by resolution C 47 until that resolution was applied to
them individually through the decisions to expel them from the party in
1994. The origin of the violations claimed by the authors cannot, in the
Committee's view, be found in the adoption of a resolution generally
declaring CDU membership incompatible with affiliation with Scientology, but
must be linked to the concrete acts which allegedly infringed the authors'
rights under the Covenant. The Committee therefore concludes that the State
party's reservation does not apply, as the alleged violations had their
origin in events occurring after the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol for Germany.
8.4 The Committee notes that the heirs of Mr. Arenz have reaffirmed their
interest in seeking rehabilitation and just satisfaction for the late first
author as well as for themselves, and concludes that they have locus standi,
under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, to proceed with the first author's
communication.
8.5 With regard to the State party's argument that it cannot be held
responsible for the authors' exclusion from the CDU, this being the decision
not of one of its organs but of a private association, the Committee recalls
that under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the State party is under
an obligation not only to respect but also to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction all the rights
recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status. Where, as in the present
case, the domestic law regulates political parties, such law must be applied
without consideration. Furthermore, States parties are thus under an
obligation to protect the practices of all religions or beliefs from
infringement [FN11] and to ensure that political parties, in their internal
management, respect the applicable provisions of article 25 of the Covenant.
[FN12]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN11] Cf. CCPR, 48th Sess. (1993), General Comment No. 22, at para. 9.
[FN12] See CCPR, 57th Sess. (1996), General Comment No. 25, at para. 26.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.6 The Committee notes that although the authors have made some references
to the hardship they have more generally experienced due to their membership
in the Church of Scientology, and to the responsibility of the State party
to ensure their rights under the Covenant, their actual claims before the
Committee merely relate to their exclusion from the CDU, an issue in respect
of which they also have exhausted domestic remedies in the meaning of
article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. Consequently, the
Committee need not address the broader issue of what legislative and
administrative measures a State party must take in order to secure that all
citizens may meaningfully exercise their right of political participation
under article 25 of the Covenant. The issue before the Committee is whether
the State party violated the authors' rights under the Covenant in that its
courts gave priority to the principle of party autonomy, over their wish to
be members in a political party that did not accept them due to their
membership in another organization of ideological nature. The Committee
recalls its constant jurisprudence that it is not a fourth instance
competent to reevaluate findings of fact or reevaluate the application of
domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings
before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of
justice. The Committee considers that the authors have failed to
substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the courts
of the State party would have amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of
justice. Therefore, the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the
Optional Protocol.
9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol;
b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State Party and to the
authors.
_____________________________
[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.] |
|
