United Nations

A/50/40


General Assembly

Distr. GENERAL  

3 October 1995

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH/FRENCH


Fiftieth session
REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE*

________________________

  *    The present  document is  a  mimeographed version  of the  nineteenth
annual report  of the  Human Rights Committee.   The report  will be  issued
subsequently as  Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session,
Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40).


95-29692 (E)   091195/...
*9529692*
  CONTENTS

Chapter  Paragraphs  Page

I.  ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS ......................1 - 278  

  A.  States parties to the Covenant ....................1 - 48

  B.  Sessions and agenda ............................... 58

  C.  Election, membership and attendance ...............6 - 78

  D.  Solemn declaration ................................ 89

  E.  Election of officers .............................. 9 - 109

  F.  Working groups ....................................11 - 139

  G.  Other matters .....................................14 - 1810

  H.  Staff resources ................................... 1911

  I.  Publicity for the work of the Committee ........... 2012

  J.  Publications relating to the work of the Committee 21 - 2412

  K.  Facilities ........................................ 2512

  L.  Future meetings of the Committee .................. 2612

  M.  Adoption of the report ............................ 2713

II.  ACTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS FORTY-NINTH
  SESSION AND BY THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AT ITS
  FIFTY-FIRST SESSION ...................................28 - 3414

III.  METHODS OF WORK OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF
  THE COVENANT:  OVERVIEW OF PRESENT WORKING METHODS ....35 - 4516

  A.  The Committee's procedures in dealing with
    emergency situations and in cases of reports that
    have been overdue for a very long period ..........36 - 3916

  B.  Participation by the specialized agencies and other
    United Nations organs in the Committee's work .....40 - 4216

  C.  Equality and human rights of women ................43 - 4517

IV.  SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
  ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT ............................46 - 5618

  A.  Reports submitted by States parties under
    article 40 of the Covenant during the period
    under review ......................................49 - 5418

  B.  Special decisions by the Human Rights Committee
    concerning reports of particular States ........... 5520
  CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter  Paragraphs  Page

  C.  Reports submitted by States parties in accordance
    with a special decision of the Human Rights
    Committee ......................................... 5620

V.  STATES THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS
  UNDER ARTICLE 40 ......................................57 - 5821

VI.  CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
  UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT ......................59 - 47622

  A.  Nepal .............................................60 - 7822

  B.  Tunisia ...........................................79 - 9825

  C.  Morocco ...........................................99 - 12228

  D.  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ............................123 - 14332

  E.  Argentina .........................................144 - 16535

  F.  New Zealand .......................................166 - 19138

  G.  Paraguay ..........................................192 - 22342

  H.  Haiti .............................................224 - 24146

  I.  Yemen .............................................242 - 26549

  J.  United States of America ..........................266 - 30452

  K.  Ukraine ...........................................305 - 33357

  L.  Latvia ............................................334 - 36162

  M.  Russian Federation ................................362 - 40765

  N.  United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland ..................................408 - 43572

  O.  Sri Lanka .........................................436 - 47675

VII.  GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE .....................477 - 48181

VIII.  CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL
  PROTOCOL ..............................................482 - 54382

  A.  Progress of work ..................................484 - 49082

  B.  Growth of the Committee's case-load under the
    Optional Protocol ................................. 49183

  C.  Approaches to examining communications under the
    Optional Protocol .................................492 - 49484
  CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter  Paragraphs  Page

  D.  Individual opinions ...............................495 - 49684

  E.  Issues considered by the Committee ................497 - 54185

  F.  Remedies called for under the Committee's Views ... 54294

  G.  Non-cooperation by States parties ................. 54395

IX.  FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL ......544 - 56596

Annexes

I.  States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
  Political Rights and to the Optional Protocols and States
  which have made the declaration under article 41 of the
  Covenant as at 28 July 1995 .......................................104

  A.  States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
    Political Rights ..............................................104

  B.  States parties to the Optional Protocol .......................107

  C.  Status of the Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition
    of the death penalty ..........................................110

  D.  States which have made the declaration under article 41 of
    the Covenant ..................................................111

II.  Members and officers of the Human Rights Committee (1995-1996) ....113

  A.  Membership ....................................................113

  B.  Officers ......................................................113

III.  Submission of reports and additional information by States parties
  under article 40 of the Covenant during the period under review ...114

IV.  Status of reports considered during the period under review and
  of reports still pending before the Committee .....................121

V.  General comments adopted under article 40, paragraph 4, of the
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ..............124

  General comment No. 24 (52) on issues relating to reservations
  made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the
  Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under
  article 41 of the Covenant ........................................124

VI.  Observations of States parties under article 40, paragraph 5, of
  the Covenant ......................................................131

  A.  United States of America ......................................131

 CONTENTS (continued)

              Page

  B.  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..........135

VII.  Revised guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports
  from States parties ...............................................140

  A.  Guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports from
    States parties under article 40 (1) (a) of the Covenant .......140

  B.  General guidelines regarding the form and contents of
    periodic reports from States parties ..........................141

VIII.         Letter    from     the    Chairman     of    the     Committee
.........................144

IX.  List of States parties' delegations that participated in
  consideration of their respective reports by the Human Rights
  Committee at its fifty-second, fifty-third and
  fifty-fourth sessions .............................................145

X.  Observations of the Human Rights Committee under article 5,
  paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol relating to the International
  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* ...........................152

  A.  Communication No. 386/1989; Famara Kone v. Senegal
    (Views adopted on 21 October 1994, fifty-second session)

  B.  Communication No. 400/1990; Darwinia R. Monaco de Gallichio
    v. Argentina
    (Views adopted on 3 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  C.  Communication No. 447/1991; Leroy Shalto v. Trinidad and Tobago
    (Views adopted on 4 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  D.  Communication No. 453/1991; A. R. and M. A. R Coeriel v.

    the Netherlands
    (Views adopted on 31 October 1994, fifty-second session)
    Appendix

  E.  Communication Nos. 464/1991 and 482/1991; G. Peart and
    A. Peart v. Jamaica
    (Views adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  F.  Communication No. 473/1991; Isadora Barroso v. Panama
    (Views adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  G.  Communication No. 493/1992; Gerald J. Griffin v. Spain
    (Views adopted on 4 April 1995, fifty-third session)



________________________

     *      To  be issued  subsequently in  Official Records  of the General
Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40), vol. II.
  CONTENTS (continued)

              Page

  H.  Communication No. 500/1992; Joszef Debreczeny v.
    the Netherlands
    (Views adopted on 3 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  I.  Communication No. 511/1992; Limari Lansman et al. v. Finland
    (Views adopted on 26 October 1994, fifty-second session)

  J.  Communication No. 514/1992; Sandra Fei v. Colombia
    (Views adopted on 4 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  K.  Communication No. 516/1992; Alina Simunek et al. v. the
    Czech Republic
    (Views adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  L.  Communication No. 518/1992; Jong-Kyu Sohn v. the Republic
    of Korea
    (Views adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  M.  Communication No. 539/1993; Keith Cox v. Canada
    (Views adopted on 31 October 1994, fifty-second session)
    Appendix

  N.  Communication No. 606/1994; Clement Francis v. Jamaica
    (Views adopted on 25 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

XI.  Decisions of the Human Rights Committee declaring communications
  inadmissible under the Optional Protocol relating to the
  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* .............153

  A.  Communication No. 437/1990; B. Colamarco Patino v. Panama
    (decision of 21 October 1994, fifty-second session)

  B.  Communication No. 438/1990; Enrique Thompson v. Panama
    (decision adopted on 21 October 1994, fifty-second session)

  C.  Communication No. 460/1991; T. Omar Simons v. Panama
    (decision of 25 October 1994, fifty-second session)

  D.  Communication No. 494/1992; Lloyd Rogers v. Jamaica
    (decision of 4 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  E.  Communication No. 515/1992; Peter Holder v. Trinidad and Tobago

    (decision adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  F.  Communication No. 525/1992; Pierre Gire v. France
    (decision adopted on 28 March 1995, fifty-third session)


________________________

  *  To be issued subsequently in Official  Records of the General Assembly,
Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40), vol. II.
CONTENTS (continued)

              Page

  G.  Communication No. 536/1993; Francis P. Perera v. Australia
    (decision adopted on 28 March 1995, fifty-third session)

  H.  Communication No. 541/1993; Errol Simms v. Jamaica
    (decision adopted on 3 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  I.  Communication No. 553/1993; Michael Bullock v.
    Trinidad and Tobago
    (decision adopted on 19 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  J.  Communication Nos. 575 and 576/1994; Lincoln Guerra and
    Brian Wallen v. Trinidad and Tobago
    (decision adopted on 4 April 1995, fifty-third session)

  K.  Communication No. 578/1994; Leonardus J. de Groot v.
    the Netherlands
    (decision adopted on 14 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

  L.  Communication No. 583/1994; Ronald H. van der Houwen v.
    the Netherlands
    (decision adopted on 14 July 1995, fifty-fourth session)

XII.      List   of   documents   issued   during   the   reporting   period
..............154


I.  ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS


A.  States parties to the Covenant

1.   As at 28 July 1995, the closing date of the fifty-fourth session of the
Human  Rights Committee, 131  States had  ratified or  acceded or  said they
would  accede to the  International Covenant  on Civil  and Political Rights
and 94  States had  ratified or  acceded or said  they would  accede to  the
Optional Protocol to  the Covenant.   Both instruments  were adopted by  the
General Assembly in resolution 2200 A (XXI) of  16 December 1966 and  opened
for  signature and  ratification  in  New York  on 19  December 1966.   They
entered into  force on 23 March  1976 in accordance  with the provisions  of
their articles 49  and 9, respectively.  Also as at 28 July  1995, 44 States
had made  the declaration  envisaged under article  41, paragraph 1,  of the
Covenant, which came into force on 28 March 1979.

2.   The second  Optional Protocol,  aiming at  the abolition  of the  death
penalty,  which  was  adopted and  opened  for  signature,  ratification  or
accession  by the General Assembly in resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989,
entered into force on 11 July 1991  in accordance with the provisions of its
article 8.  As at 28  July 1995, there were 28  States parties to the second
Optional Protocol.

3.  A list of States parties to the Covenant and to the Optional  Protocols,
with an  indication of those  which have made the  declaration under article

41, paragraph 1,  of the Covenant,  is contained  in annex I to  the present
report.

4.  Reservations and  other declarations made by  a number of States parties
in  respect of  the  Covenant  or the  Optional  Protocols are  set  out  in
document CCPR/C/2/Rev.4 and  in notifications deposited with the  Secretary-
General.


B.  Sessions and agenda

5.  The Human  Rights Committee has held  three sessions since  the adoption
of its previous annual report.   The fifty-second session (1358th  to 1386th
meetings) was held  at the United Nations Office  at Geneva from 17  October
to 4 November 1994,  the fifty-third session (1387th to 1415th meetings)  at
United Nations Headquarters from  20 March to  7 April 1995, and the  fifty-
fourth session (1416th  to 1444th meetings) at  the United Nations Office at
Geneva from 3 to 28 July 1995.


C.  Election, membership and attendance

6.   At the  fourteenth meeting of  States parties, held  at United  Nations
Headquarters  on  8 September  1994,  nine  members  of  the Committee  were
elected,  in accordance with articles 28 to 32 of  the Covenant, to fill the
vacancies  resulting from  the termination  of some  terms of  office on  31
December  1994.   Mr.   Prafullachandra  Natwarlal   Baghwati,  Mr.   Thomas
Buergenthal, Mr.  Eckart Klein, Mr. David  Kretzmer and  Mrs. Cecilia Medina
Quiroga were elected  for the first time.   Mr. Nisuke Ando, Mrs.  Christine
Chanet, Mr. Omran El Shafei and Mr. Julio  Prado Vallejo were re-elected.  A
list of  the members of  the Committee appears  in annex II  to the  present
report.

 7.   All the  members  of the  Committee participated  in the  fifty-second
session. Mr.  Lallah attended only part  of that session.   Mrs. Chanet  did
not attend the fifty-third session.  Mr. Ban  and Mr. Baghwati attended only
part of that session.   Mrs. Higgins attended  only part of the fifty-fourth
session.


D.  Solemn declaration

8.  At the  1387th, 1397th and 1416th meetings of the Committee (fifty-third
and fifty-fourth  sessions),  the members  of  the  Committee who  had  been
elected  or re-elected at  the fourteenth  meeting of States  parties to the
Covenant made  a solemn  declaration in  accordance with  article 38  of the
Covenant before assuming their functions.


E.  Election of officers

9.    At the  1387th  and  1399th  meetings  of  the Committee  (fifty-third
session), held on 20  and 28 March 1995, the Committee elected its  officers
for a term of two years, in accordance with article 39, paragraph  1, of the
Covenant:  they are listed in annex II.

10.  The Committee expressed its  sincerest appreciation to Mr. Nisuke Ando,
the  outgoing Chairman,  for  the contribution  which  he  had  made to  the
success of the Committee's work by presiding over it so competently.


F.  Working groups

11.  In  accordance with  rules 62 and  89 of  its rules  of procedure,  the
Committee established  working groups which were  to meet  before its fifty-
second, fifty-third and fifty-fourth sessions.

12.   The working  group established  under rule  89 was entrusted  with the
task of  making recommendations  to the  Committee regarding  communications
received under  the Optional  Protocol.   At the  fifty-second session,  the
working group was  composed of Mr.  Ban and  Mr. El  Shafei, Ms. Evatt,  Mr.
Mavrommatis and Mr. Prado Vallejo.   It met at the United Nations Office  at
Geneva from  10 to  14  October 1994  and  elected  Mr. Mavrommatis  as  its
Chairperson/Rapporteur.  At the  fifty-third session, the  working group was
composed  of Mr. Ando,  Mr. Francis, Mrs.  Higgins, Mr.  Mavrommatis and Mr.
Prado Vallejo.   It met at United  Nations Headquarters from  13 to 17 March
1995 and elected Mrs. Higgins as its Chairperson/Rapporteur.  At the  fifty-
fourth session,  the  working group  was composed  of Mr.  Baghwati, Mr.  El
Shafei, Mr.  Mavrommatis, Mr. Pocar and  Mr. Prado Vallejo.   It  met at the
United Nations  Office at Geneva from 3 to 7 July 1995 and elected Mr. Pocar
as its Chairperson/Rapporteur.

13.   The working  group established  under rule 62 was  mandated to prepare
concise  lists of issues  concerning the  second, third  and fourth periodic
reports to be considered by the  Committee at its fifty-second,  fifty-third
and fifty-fourth sessions.  At the  fifty-second session, the working  group
was  composed of  Mr. Aguilar  Urbina, Mr.  Dimitrijevic, Mr.  Sadi  and Mr.
Francis.   It met  at the  United Nations  Office at  Geneva from  10 to  14
October  1994 and elected Mr. Aguilar Urbina  as its Chairperson/Rapporteur.
It had  the task of studying  the Committee's methods of  work as well as  a
draft general  comment on  issues relating  to reservations  made by  States
parties upon ratification of  or accession to the  Covenant or the  Optional
Protocols thereto or  in relation to declarations  made under article 41  of
the  Covenant.  The members of  the working group  also held a joint meeting
with the members  of the working  group established under the  note relating
to  questions related to the  structure of annual  reports and the procedure
to be  followed by the  Committee in response  to emergency  situations.  At
the fifty-third session, it  was composed of  Mr. Ban, Mr. Bruni Celli,  Ms.
Evatt and Mr. Lallah; it  met at United  Nations Headquarters from 13 to  17
March 1995 and elected  Mr. Ban as its  Chairperson/Rapporteur.  It  had the
task of studying a  draft general comment  on article 25 and of  considering
the Committee's methods of work.  In addition, pursuant to a decision  taken
at the Committee's 1384th meeting (fifty-second  session) (see paras. 40 and
41),  the   working  group  held   a  closed  meeting   on  13  March   with
representatives  of  specialized   agencies  in  order  to  obtain   advance
information on  reports to  be considered  at the  fifty-third session;  the
meeting was attended by representatives of the  International Labour Office,
the Office of  the United  Nations High  Commissioner for  Refugees and  the
World Health  Organization. At  the fifty-fourth session, the  working group
was composed of Mr.  Aguilar Urbina, Mr. Francis,  Mr. Klein and Mrs. Medina
Quiroga.   It met at the  United Nations Office  at Geneva from 3  to 7 July
1995 and elected Mr. Klein as its Chairperson/Rapporteur.   It had the  task
of  studying the  Committee's methods  of  work  and of  considering general
comments already  adopted in the past  in order to  determine which of  them
warranted updating.   Pursuant  to a decision  taken at  the 1384th  meeting
(fifty-second  session), the  working group  held a meeting  on 3  July with
representatives  of the  International  Labour  Office, the  Office  of  the
United  Nations   High  Commissioner  for  Refugees  and  the  World  Health
Organization  in  order to  obtain  advance  information  on  reports to  be
considered by the Committee at its fifty-fourth session.


G.  Other matters

1.  Fifty-second session

14.   The Assistant  Secretary-General for Human Rights  referred to the aim
of treaty universalization, as  established by the Declaration and Programme
of Action adopted  by the World Conference on  Human Rights held at  Vienna,
and emphasized that the Secretary-General had  addressed a request to  Heads
of State  and  Government calling  for  the  universal ratification  of  the
principal human rights instruments and, in  particular, the Covenant and its
two Optional Protocols.  In his  report on the work of the Organization, the

Secretary-General had  called for  better synergy  between the  work of  the
treaty  bodies  and   the  programme  of  advisory  services  and  technical
assistance of  the Centre for  Human Rights.   The members  of the Committee
were also informed of the work of the  fifth meeting of persons chairing the
human rights  treaty bodies held in  September 1994, as  well as the  recent
session of  the Committee on  the Rights  of the Child and  the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.


2.  Fifty-third session

15.   The Committee  was informed  by the  representative of the  Secretary-
General of the recent  activities of the General Assembly in regard to human
rights,   particularly   its   resolution   49/178   concerning    effective
implementation of  international instruments  on human rights, in  which the
Assembly noted with appreciation the initiatives  taken by treaty bodies  in
respect  of  urgent  measures  to  prevent  human  rights  violations.   The
Assembly also  urged them  to  amend  their reporting  guidelines so  as  to
request   gender-specific   information   from   States    parties.      The
recommendation of  the meeting of persons  chairing the  human rights treaty
bodies that  such meetings should  in future be held on  an annual basis was
also endorsed by the  Assembly.  In  addition, the members were informed  of
developments at  the fifty-first session of  the Commission  on Human Rights
and of  the activities  of the  Committee on  Economic, Social  and Cultural
Rights, the Committee against  Torture, the Committee on  the Rights of  the
Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

16.   The  High  Commissioner for  Human Rights  stressed the  importance he
attached to the Committee's work and,  in particular, emphasized the leading
role it  played in the  human rights treaty  system.   Further efforts were,
however, needed in order  to publicize the  results of its work more  widely
and bring them to  the attention of the competent national authorities.   At
every  one   of  his  meetings   with  government  representatives,  he  had
systematically  drawn  their  attention  to  the  comments  adopted  by  the
Committee following  its consideration  of the  reports  of States  parties.
Although it was too early to draw any  firm conclusions about that practice,
he had been struck  by the fact that Governments were extremely sensitive to
the issues  raised and  had on the  whole given assurances  that they  would
take steps to apply the Committee's recommendations.

17.    The High  Commissioner also  stressed  the  importance of  the treaty
system  in the  international protection  of  human  rights, saying  that an
unprecedented meeting had just been held  between the persons chairing human
rights  treaty bodies and  the Secretary-General.   That  meeting, which the
High Commissioner had  made a point  of attending  in person,  had been  the
result of  an initiative  taken at  the most  recent meeting of  the persons
chairing such bodies in  September 1994.  Among  the subjects discussed  had
been the action  taken by the different  committees to prevent human  rights
violations, such as early warning measures and urgent procedures.

18.  The Committee also had an exchange  of correspondence with the  Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia  and Montenegro) concerning the submission of
reports in  conformity with  the Covenant (see  paras. 53 and  54 and  annex
VIII of this report).


H.  Staff resources

19.   The  greater complexity  and more  intensive pace  of the  Committee's
operations,  resulting from the  increased number  of States  parties to the
Covenant as well  as from qualitative changes  in the Committee's methods of
work,  have  added significantly  to  the  workload  of  the Secretariat  in
providing  substantive  servicing  to  the  Committee  in  relation  to  the
monitoring  of  States  parties'  reports.   The  number  of  communications
submitted to the Committee  under the Optional Protocol has also grown  (see
chap. VIII).  The  Committee noted that under the terms of article 36 of the

Covenant the  Secretary-General of  the United  Nations was  to provide  the
necessary  staff  and  facilities  for  the  effective  performance  of  the
functions  of the Committee  under the  Covenant.   It accordingly requested
the Secretary-General  to take the necessary  steps to  ensure a substantial
increase  in the  specialized staff  assigned  to  service the  Committee in
relation  both  to  the  monitoring  of   States  parties'  reports  and  to
consideration of communications submitted under the Optional Protocol.

I.  Publicity for the work of the Committee

20.  The  Chairman gave press conferences at  each of the Committee's  three
sessions.   The Committee expressed the  wish that  the information services
should  be associated  more closely with its  work so as to  give it greater
publicity. The Committee noted with appreciation  the great interest in  its
work taken  by the non-governmental organizations  and thanked  them for the
information provided.


J.  Publications relating to the work of the Committee

21.   The Committee  noted that the  Official Documents  (Yearbooks) of  the
Human Rights  Committee had been published  until 1991.  Given the resources
on  hand, the  Committee said  that  publication  of the  Official Documents
(Yearbooks) should  be  expedited in  order  to  liquidate the  backlog  and
eliminate the delay in issuing the French version.

22.   The Committee  once again urged  that the work  be speeded up  for the
purpose of publishing  volume III of the  selection of decisions taken under
the  Optional Protocol so as to reduce the backlog as  soon as possible.  In
future, the selected  decisions should  be issued  in a  regular and  timely
fashion.

23.  The Committee also insisted on the need for  its annual report together
with its annexes to be submitted to the General Assembly on time.

24.   The  Committee  wishes to  draw  attention to  the  fact that  it  was
deprived  of  summary  records  at its  forty-ninth  session  for  financial
reasons,  but  that the  Secretariat  undertook  to  produce  them from  the
recorded tapes, in English  only. 1/  That  has not  yet been done, and  the
Committee therefore wishes to reiterate its request.


K.  Facilities

25.   The Committee expressed  a wish for  additional facilities  to be made
available during  its sessions.   It  would like  to have  a  room in  which
members could receive delegations, meet in  informal groups, or work between
meetings. In  due course,  all the  documentation members  of the  Committee
might need in  preparing their work could be  kept in the room in  question,
which could be used  by other treaty bodies (see decision along those  lines
adopted at the most recent  meeting of persons chairing  human rights treaty
bodies in September 1994).


L.  Future meetings of the Committee

26.   At  its fifty-third  session,  the  Committee confirmed  the following
schedule of meetings for  1996-1997:  the fifty-sixth  session will be  held
at United  Nations Headquarters from 18  March to 5  April 1996, the  fifty-
seventh session  at the  United Nations Office at  Geneva from 8 to  26 July
1996, the fifty-eighth  session at the United  Nations Office at Geneva from
21 October  to 8 November  1996, the  fifty-ninth session at  United Nations
Headquarters from  24 March to  11 April 1997,  the sixtieth  session at the
United  Nations Office  at Geneva  from 14  July to  1  August 1997  and the
sixty-first session at the  United Nations Office at Geneva from 20  October
to 7 November 1997.   In each case, the working groups of the Committee will

meet during the week preceding the session.


M.  Adoption of the report

27.  At  its 1443rd and 1444th  meetings, held on 27  and 28 July  1995, the
Committee considered  the draft  of its  nineteenth annual  report, covering
its activities at  the fifty-second, fifty-third and fifty-fourth  sessions,
held  in 1994  and 1995.    The report,  as amended  in  the course  of  the
discussion, was adopted unanimously.

              II.  ACTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS FORTY-NINTH
                   SESSION AND BY THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AT
                   ITS FIFTY-FIRST SESSION


28.  At its 1415th meeting, held on  7 April 1995, the Committee  considered
the agenda item  in the light of the  relevant summary records of the  Third
Committee,  General  Assembly   resolution  49/178  of  23  December   1994,
Commission on  Human Rights resolutions 1995/18  and 1995/22  of 24 February
1995, and Commission on Human Rights decision 1995/110 of 3 March 1995.

29.    The  Committee  noted  that,  in  accordance  with  General  Assembly
resolution 45/175 of 18 December 1990,  substantive resolutions on the human
rights treaty  bodies should be  adopted every two  years (in  uneven years)
and that, consequently, at its forty-ninth  session, the Third Committee had
limited itself to taking note of its report.

30.  With  reference to the discussion in  the General Assembly relating  to
the effective implementation  of international instruments on human  rights,
including reporting obligations  under those instruments, and the  effective
functioning  of the  treaty bodies,  the Committee  noted with  satisfaction
that the  Assembly had once  again stressed the importance  of compliance by
States parties  with their reporting obligations.   The  Committee took note
of the  importance attached  by the Assembly  to the final  comments on  the
reports  considered by  the  human  rights treaty-monitoring  bodies.    The
Committee noted that the conclusions and  recommendations of the 5th meeting
of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies had been endorsed by  the
General  Assembly,  particularly  the  recommendation  that  their  meetings
should be held annually.

31.    The Committee  discussed  the  relevant  resolutions  adopted by  the
Commission on  Human Rights at its  fifty-first session.   It wholeheartedly
endorsed the resolution on succession of  States in respect of international
human rights treaties as  well as that on  the Covenants, in  particular the
recommendation that countries having difficulties in introducing changes  in
their  legislation  that   might  be  necessary   for  the  ratification  of
international instruments  on human rights  should be  encouraged to request
appropriate support  from the Centre for  Human Rights  on advisory services
and  technical  cooperation  programmes,  as  well  as  the   recommendation
stressing  the   importance  for  States   parties  to  observe  the  agreed
conditions  and   procedure  for   derogation   under  article   4  of   the
International Covenant on Civil and Political  Rights.  The Committee  noted
with satisfaction the Commission's request that the recent periodic  reports
of States parties to the human  rights treaty-monitoring bodies, the summary
records  of  Committee  discussions  pertaining  to  them,  and   concluding
observations  and  final  comments  of  the  treaty  bodies  should  be made
available to the United Nations information centres.

32.  The Committee considered Commission  on Human Rights decision  1995/110
on  the  right  to a  fair  trial  and  noted that,  as  recommended  by the
Subcommission on Prevention  of Discrimination and Protection of  Minorities
in its resolution 1994/35 of 26 August  1994, the Commission was considering
the establishment  of an open-ended working group to draft  a third optional
protocol to the International Covenant on  Civil and Political Rights aiming
at guaranteeing under all circumstances the  right to a fair trial  and to a

remedy.  In that regard,  the Committee  recalled that it  had submitted its
own recommendations  to the  Subcommission on  Prevention of  Discrimination
and Protection  of Minorities.   In  those recommendations,  adopted at  its
1314th meeting  (fiftieth session)  on 6 April  1994, 2/  the Committee  had
concluded  that  it was  inadvisable to  pursue the  elaboration of  a draft
optional  protocol  to  the  Covenant  with the  aim  of  adding article  9,
paragraphs  3 and  4, as well  as article  14 to  the list  of non-derogable
rights enumerated in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. 

33.   The  Committee  again  noted that  the purpose  of the  possible third
optional protocol was to  add article 9, paragraphs 3  and 4, and article 14
to the list of  non-derogable provisions in article  4, paragraph 2,  of the
Covenant.  Based on its experience  derived from the consideration of States
parties' reports submitted under article 40  of the Covenant, the  Committee
wishes to point out  that, with respect to  article 9, paragraphs  3 and  4,
the issue  of remedies available to  individuals during  states of emergency
has  often been discussed.  The Committee  is satisfied  that States parties
generally understand that the right  to habeas corpus and  amparo should not
be  limited in situations  of emergency.   Furthermore, the  Committee is of
the view  that the remedies provided in article 9, paragraphs  3 and 4, read
in conjunction with  article 2, are  inherent in  the Covenant  as a  whole.
Having this  in mind,  the Committee believes  that there is  a considerable
risk  that the  proposed  draft  third optional  protocol  might  implicitly
invite  States parties  to feel  free  to  derogate from  the provisions  of
article  9 of the Covenant during states of emergency  if they do not ratify
the  proposed  optional  protocol.    Thus,  the  protocol  might  have  the
undesirable effect of diminishing the protection of detained persons  during
states of emergency. 

34.  The Committee is also of the view that it  would simply not be feasible
to expect  that all provisions of  article 14 can remain  fully in force  in
any kind of emergency.   Thus, the inclusion  of article  14 as such in  the
list of non-derogable provisions would not be appropriate. 
            III.  METHODS OF WORK OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF
                  THE COVENANT:  OVERVIEW OF PRESENT WORKING METHODS


35.  This section of the Committee's report aims  at providing a concise and
up-to-date  overview  of  the  modifications  recently  introduced  by   the
Committee  in its working  methods under  article 40 of the  Covenant and is
particularly designed  to make  the current procedure  more transparent  and
readily  accessible  to all,  so  as to  assist  States  parties  and others
interested in  the implementation of  the Covenant.   A detailed account  of
the methods of  work usually applied by the  Human Rights Committee for  the
consideration  of  reports  submitted  by  States  parties  appears  in  the
Committee's last annual report. 3/


             A.  The Committee's procedures in dealing with emergency
                 situations and in cases of reports that have been
                 overdue for a very long period

36.  Since April 1991 (forty-first  session), and in the light  of recent or
current  events indicating  that the  enjoyment  of human  rights  protected
under the  Covenant has been seriously  affected in  certain States parties,
the Committee has resorted  to the practice of requesting the States parties
concerned  to submit  urgently reports  on  the situation  (generally within
three months).  Such decisions have  been taken regarding, in  chronological
order, Iraq (11 April 1991), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (4  November
1991), Peru  (10 April  1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Croatia and the  Federal
Republic of  Yugoslavia (Serbia  and Montenegro)  (6 October  1992), Angola,
Burundi (29 October 1993), Haiti and Rwanda (27 October 1994). 

37.   The  situation  regarding overdue  reports has  grown  worse  over the
years,  seriously  jeopardizing  the  attainment of  the  objectives  of the
Covenant  and  hampering  the  ability  of  the  Committee  to  monitor  the

implementation of the Covenant  in the States  parties concerned.  As at  28
July 1995, a total of 106 reports (27 initial, 21 second  periodic, 37 third
periodic and  21 fourth periodic  reports), involving a  total of  85 States
parties, were outstanding. 

38.   In view of  the foregoing, the  Committee decided  at its fifty-second
session that in future  States parties that had  not replied favourably to a
special request  or to a decision  by the Committee  and whose reports  were
overdue by five years  or more should be  sent an energetically  worded note
verbale requesting them to  submit their reports as  soon as possible.  Such
notes verbales were sent for the first time on 12 December 1994.

39.   At  the  same  session, the  Committee  also decided  that, where  the
consideration  of a  report revealed  a  grave  human rights  situation, the
Committee  could request  the State  party  concerned  to receive  a mission
composed  of one or  more of  its members in order  to re-establish dialogue
with it, explain the situation better  and formulate appropriate suggestions
or recommendations.


            B.  Participation by specialized agencies and other United
                Nations organs in the Committee's work

40.    At its  fifty-second  session,  the  Committee  modified its  working
methods so as to  enable the specialized agencies  and other United  Nations
organs  to take  a  more  active part  in  its activities.    The  Committee
accordingly  decided that a  meeting would be scheduled  at the beginning of
each session of  the pre-sessional working  group so that it  might suitably
receive  oral  information  provided  by  those  organizations.   Such  oral
information should thus  relate to the reports  to be considered  during the
Committee's  session and,  if need  be, supplement  the  written information
already provided.

41.  Consequently, starting with the  fifty-third session, the Working Group
on  Article  40  devoted  a  meeting  to  listening  to  such statements  by
specialized agencies and other United Nations organs concerning the  reports
to  be considered  during the  plenary session.   The  Committee was  highly
appreciative  both of the wealth of the oral or written information received
and  of the  level of  representation of  the specialized agencies  or other
United  Nations  organs  participating  in  such  exchanges   of  views,  in
particular the  International Labour  Office and  the Office  of the  United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

42.    On  the  basis  of  this  experience  and  noting  that  the  special
rapporteurs or representatives and the working  groups of the Commission  on
Human  Rights were tending  to make  increasingly frequent  reference to its
comments,  the Committee,  at  its fifty-third  session, expressed  the wish
that they should also be allowed as  far as possible to avail  themselves of
the  procedure described in  the previous  paragraph.   It therefore decided
that,  whenever possible,  the special  rapporteurs or  representatives  and
representatives  of working groups  of the  Commission on  Human Rights that
had drafted country reports or thematic reports  would be invited to  attend
the aforementioned meeting of the Working Group on Article 40. 


C.  Equality and human rights of women

43.   The Committee  took note  of the  various recommendations made  by the
World Conference on Human Rights concerning  the integration of a  component
regarding equality of status and human rights of  women in the activities of
the human rights treaty  bodies (principles 36  to 42 of the Declaration  of
the Vienna Programme of Action).   The Committee stressed in that connection
that  the  lists  of  issues  to  be   dealt  with  during  the  Committee's
consideration of States' reports submitted under  article 40 of the Covenant
systematically included practical matters concerning equality of status  and
the human  rights  of women.  Furthermore, General  Comment No.  4 (13)  was

devoted to  matters  concerning  measures  to be  taken  to give  effect  to
article 3  of the Covenant, while  General Comment No.  18 (37) covered  all
the  provisions against discrimination  under articles  2, 3  and 26  of the
Covenant.   The  Committee is  envisaging the  possibility  of supplementing
these two texts by a specific general comment.

44.   Lastly,  at its  fifty-third session,  the Committee  decided to amend
paragraph 4  (c)  of  the  Committee's  guidelines  concerning  the  initial
reports submitted by States parties as follows:

"(...)  The part of the report relating  specifically to parts I, II and III
of  the Covenant  should  describe  in relation  to the  provisions  of each
article:

"(...)  (c)   Any other factors or  difficulties affecting the  enjoyment of
the  right by persons  within the jurisdiction of  the States, including any
factors affecting the equal enjoyment by women of that right". 

45.  Paragraph 6  (e) of the Committee's  guidelines for periodic reports is
amended accordingly.   The  guidelines as  amended are  reproduced in  annex
VII.

                 IV.  SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
                     ARTICLE 40 OF   THE COVENANT


46.  Under article  2, paragraph 1, of  the International Covenant  on Civil
and Political Rights,  each State party undertakes  to respect and to ensure
to all individuals within its  territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights  recognized  and  enumerated  in  Part  III  of  the  Covenant.    In
connection  with this provision,  article 40,  paragraph 1,  of the Covenant
requires States parties  to submit reports on  the measures adopted and  the
progress  achieved  in  the enjoyment  of  the various  rights,  and on  any
factors  and  difficulties  that   may  affect  the  implementation  of  the
Covenant.  States  parties undertake to  submit reports  within one year  of
the entry into force  of the Covenant for  the States parties  concerned and
thereafter whenever the  Committee so requests.   In order to assist  States
parties in submitting reports, the Human  Rights Committee approved, at  its
second  session, general  guidelines  regarding  the  form and  contents  of
initial reports (see annex VII).

47.   Furthermore, in accordance  with article 40,  paragraph 1  (b), of the
Covenant, the Committee adopted a decision  on periodicity at its thirteenth
session requiring  States  parties  to  submit  subsequent  reports  to  the
Committee every five years. 4/  At the  same session, the Committee  adopted
guidelines regarding the form and contents  of periodic reports from  States
parties under article 40, paragraph 1 (b), of the Covenant (see annex  VII).


48.  At its thirty-ninth session, the Committee adopted an amendment to  its
guidelines for  the submission of initial  and periodic  reports relating to
reporting by States parties  on action taken in  response to the issuance by
the Committee of views under the Optional Protocol. 5/  At its  forty-second
session, the Committee revised its general  guidelines for the submission of
initial   and  periodic  reports  to  take  into  account  the  consolidated
guidelines for  the initial  part of  the reports  of States  parties to  be
submitted  under  the   various  international  human   rights  instruments,
including  the Covenant  (HRI/CORE/1). 6/  In addition,  at  its fifty-third
session, the  Committee further  amended its  guidelines with  a request  to
States  to include in their reports information on any factors affecting the
equal enjoyment by  women of  the rights protected  under the Covenant  (see
para. 44 and annex VII).


             A.  Reports submitted by States parties under article 40
                 of the Covenant during the period under review

49.    During  the  period  covered  by the  present  report,  the Committee
received  16  initial  or  periodic  reports,  representing  a   significant
increase by comparison with previous years.   Initial reports were submitted
by  Brazil, Estonia,  Guatemala,  Latvia, Switzerland  and  Zambia;  Cyprus,
Denmark, Iceland, Mauritius, the Netherlands and Peru submitted their  third
periodic  reports;  and  Belarus, the  Russian  Federation,  Sweden and  the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and  Northern Ireland submitted their fourth
periodic reports.

50.  The Committee  noted that the reports submitted by States parties under
article 40 of the Covenant increasingly  reproduced the texts of legislation
in  extenso, which made  the reports  extremely bulky.   The Committee noted
that the States concerned adopted this  practice with the clear intention of
complying   with   the    Committee's   guidelines   on   initial    reports
(CCPR/C/5/Rev.2),  which   refer,  inter  alia   to  a  description  of  the
legislative, administrative or other
measures in  force  relating to  each  right.   The  Committee  nevertheless
considers that  States should  include only necessary  information in  their
reports,  and  in  particular  avoid simply  paraphrasing  the  law  without
describing its practical  application; this would  obviate the huge increase
in the  volume of information furnished  to the  Committee, and consequently
the  growing  constraints  faced  by  the  Secretariat  in  translating  and
reproducing  documents as well  as the  inevitable delays  occasioned in the
consideration of reports.

51.  The Committee  received a communication from the Government of  Mexico,
dated 18  July  1994, regarding  the  consideration  of its  third  periodic
report  by  the  Committee  in  March  1994  (fiftieth  session).  7/    The
communication  included  replies  to  certain oral  questions  to  which the
delegation  had  been unable  to  reply  during  the  consideration of  that
report, as  well as comments on the observations of  the Committee contained
in document CCPR/C/79/Add.32.  The Government's communication is  reproduced
in document CCPR/C/108.

52.   The Committee also received  a communication dated  27 July 1995  from
the  Government of  Latvia concerning  consideration of  its initial  report
(see  paras. 332 to  359).   It contained replies to  certain oral questions
which the delegation  could not answer when its  report was considered.   In
addition, in a  communication of  the same date,  the Government of  Ukraine
made  a  number  of  observations  about  the   Committee's  final  comments
reproduced  in  paragraphs  303  and  331  of   the  present  report.    The
Government's communication appears in document CCPR/C/109.

53.   In a letter dated  26 January 1995, addressed  to the Chairman of  the
Committee,  the  Permanent   Representative  of  the  Federal  Republic   of
Yugoslavia to the United Nations Office  at Geneva stated, inter  alia, that
in  view of  the fact  that the  rights of  Yugoslavia under  the  Covenant,
particularly the right to equitable participation  in the Meetings of States
parties, had  been  denied, its  Government  would  only submit  the  fourth
periodic report of  the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Committee when
the Federal  Republic of  Yugoslavia is  treated as  an equal  party to  the
Covenant.

54.  In his reply on behalf of the Committee, on  13 July 1995, the Chairman
underlined that the submission of reports  under the Covenant constitutes  a
solemn  legal obligation assumed  by each  State party  and is indispensable
for carrying out the Committee's basic  function of establishing a  positive
dialogue with States parties  in the field of human rights.  Therefore, non-
submission of reports greatly hinders the  process of dialogue and seriously
undermines  the  objectives  of the  Covenant by  hampering  the Committee's
ability to monitor  the implementation of the Covenant.  He further recalled
that in  an earlier  decision  the  Committee had  emphasized that  all  the
people within the  territory of the former  Yugoslavia were entitled  to the
guarantees of  the Covenant and that the Federal Republic  of Yugoslavia was
bound  by the  obligations under  the Covenant.  While it  was not  for  the
Committee to take a position on  the action of the Meeting of States parties

with regard to the Federal Republic  of Yugoslavia (Serbia and  Montenegro),
the Committee would continue to proceed  on the basis of  that understanding
and expressed  the  hope that  the Government  of  the  Federal Republic  of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) would reconsider its  decision and submit
its report to the Committee  as soon as possible (the content of the  latter
is reproduced in annex VII of the report).


                B.  Special decisions by the Human Rights Committee
                   concerning reports of particular States

55.  In view of the special difficulties encountered  by Haiti and Rwanda in
the  implementation of the  Covenant, the  Committee adopted,  at its 1374th
meeting  (fifty-second session),  held on  27  October 1994,  the  following
special decisions:

Haiti

    The Human Rights Committee,

  Deeply  concerned at the  difficulties encountered  by Haiti  in regard to
protection of  the human rights  set forth in the  International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights,

  Acting under article 40, paragraph 1 (b) of the Covenant,

  1.   Decides to  request the  Government of  Haiti to  submit its  initial
report without  delay for  discussion by  the Committee  at its  fifty-third
session, to  be held from 20  March to 7  April 1995, and, in  any event, to
submit  not  later  than 31  January  1995  a  report,  in  summary form  if
necessary,  relating in particular to  the application of articles  6, 7, 9,
10 and 14 of the Covenant;

  2.    Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  bring  this  decision  to  the
attention of the Government of Haiti.


Rwanda

  The Human Rights Committee,

  Deeply concerned  at the difficulties encountered  by Rwanda  in regard to
protection of the  human rights set forth  in the International Covenant  on
Civil and Political Rights,

  Acting under article 40, paragraph 1 (b) of the Covenant,

  1.   Decides  to request  the Government  of  Rwanda  to submit  its third
periodic  report without delay for discussion by the Committee at its fifty-
third session, to be held from  20 March to 7 April 1995, and, in any event,
to  submit not  later than  31 January  1995 a  report,  in summary  form if
necessary, relating  in particular  to  the application  during the  present
period of articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 27 of the Covenant;

  2.    Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  bring  this  decision  to  the
attention of the Government of Rwanda.


            C.  Reports submitted by States parties in accordance with
                a special decision of the Human Rights Committee

56.   Burundi submitted  a special  report pursuant  to a  decision to  that
effect  adopted  by the  Committee on  29  October  1993 at  its forty-ninth
session. 8/ Haiti  submitted a special  report which was  considered at  the
Committee's fiftythird session (see para. 55 and paras. 222 to 239).
      V.  STATES THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS

          UNDER ARTICLE 40


57.  States parties to the Covenant must  submit the reports referred to  in
article 40 of  the Covenant on time so  that the Committee can duly  perform
its  functions under  that article.   These  reports  are  the basis  of the
dialogue  between the Committee and  States parties, and  any delay in their
submission means an interruption of this  process.  However, serious  delays
have  been noted  since  the establishment  of the  Committee.    During the
period covered  by the present report,  the Committee  took various measures
to  induce  States   parties  effectively  to   carry  out  their  reporting
obligation under article  40 of the  Covenant.   Reminders were  sent on  12
December  1994 and 29 June 1995 to States parties whose reports had not been
submitted as scheduled.   In addition, at the  session of March/April  1995,
the  members   of  the   Bureau  met  in   New  York   with  the   Permanent
Representatives of all States  parties whose initial report, periodic report
or report  under a special decision  of the Committee  had been overdue  for
more  than  four  years.    Such  contacts  were  made  with  the  Permanent
Representatives of  all the States concerned  with the  exception of Angola,
the Gambia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

58.  After reviewing  the situation with respect to the late submission both
of  initial and periodic  reports, the  Committee noted with  regret that 85
States  parties to  the Covenant,  or more  than  two  thirds of  all States
parties,  were  in  arrears  with  their   reports.    The  Committee  again
considered itself duty-bound to express its  serious concern about the  fact
that so many States  parties are in default  of their obligations  under the
Covenant.  This state of affairs  seriously impedes the Committee's  ability
to monitor the implementation of  the Covenant, and it  therefore decided to
list in  the core of its  annual report to the  General Assembly, as it  had
already done in  its previous annual  report, the States  parties that  have
more than one report overdue.  The Committee wishes to reiterate that  these
States are in serious default of their obligations  under article 40 of  the
Covenant. 

      VI.  CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
           UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT


59.   At  its 1314th  meeting (fiftieth  session), the  Committee decided to
discontinue its practice of including in its  annual report summaries of the
consideration of  the reports submitted by  States parties  under article 40
of the Covenant.   In accordance with that decision, the annual report shall
contain, inter alia, the final comments adopted by the Committee at the  end
of  the  consideration  of  States  parties'  reports.    Accordingly,   the
following  paragraphs,  arranged  on  a  country-by-country  basis  in   the
sequence followed  by the  Committee in  its consideration  of the  reports,
contained the final  comments adopted by the  Committee with respect to  the
States  parties' reports considered at its forty-ninth,  fiftieth and fifty-
first sessions.


A.  Nepal

60.  The Committee considered the  initial report of Nepal (CCPR/C/74/Add.2)
at  its 1359th and  1363rd meetings,  held on  17 and  19 October  1994, and
adopted 9/ the following final comments:


1.  Introduction

61.   The Committee  welcomes the  initial report  (CCPR/C/74/Add.2) and the
core document  (HRI/CORE/1/Add.42) of Nepal  and expresses its  appreciation
to the  State  party  for  the opening  of  a  constructive dialogue.    The
Committee regrets, however, that the information  provided in the report was
in many  respects incomplete and did  not follow  the Committee's guidelines

regarding the  form and contents of  initial reports  (CCPR/C/5/Rev.1).  The
lack of information  on factors and difficulties impeding the implementation
of the  Covenant prevented the  Committee from gaining  a clear  idea of the
real human rights situation in the country.

62.  The Committee expresses its appreciation to  the State party for taking
part in the dialogue  and for responding to  the questions raised by members
of the Committee.  The valuable  information provided orally supplemented to
a certain  extent the report,  thereby providing a  sound basis  for a frank
and  fruitful dialogue  between the  Committee  and the  State party.    It,
however, regrets that  the delegation  could not include representatives  of
the various  Ministries concerned with  the implementation  of the Covenant,
in particular of the Ministry of Justice.


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

63.  The Committee recognizes  that Nepal is emerging from  a long period of
isolation, and that  the remnants of  authoritarian rule have  not yet  been
overcome.    Steps  remain  to  be  taken  in  engaging,  consolidating  and
developing  democratic  institutions   for  better  implementation   of  the
Covenant.   Economic depression, extreme  poverty and widespread  illiteracy
constitute obstacles to the effective implementation of the Covenant.


 3.  Positive aspects

64.   The Committee welcomes the  efforts undertaken by  the State party  to
establish democratic institutions and multipartism  as well as  its declared
commitment to  the rule of law  and the independence of  the judiciary.   It
takes  note, in  particular, of  the adoption  of a  new Constitution  which
provides the  basis for a parliamentary system of government based on multi-
party democracy  as well as for an  independent Supreme Court.  The right of
citizens  to petition  the Supreme  Court  to  challenge laws  which violate
human  rights and  the use  of this  right  is  particularly welcomed.   The
Committee also notes with satisfaction that Nepal has recently acceded to  a
number  of  international human  rights  instruments,  including  the  First
Optional Protocol to the Covenant.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

65.  The  Committee notes that the status  of the Covenant within the  legal
system is  unclear and  that the  necessary steps  to adopt legislative  and
other measures to give  effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant have
not  yet  been   taken.  Furthermore,  a   significant  gap  exists  between
provisions of the Constitution  and other legal norms  on the one  hand, and
their application in practice,  on the other.   Accordingly, there is a need
to clearly  define  the  place of  the Covenant  within  the Nepalese  legal
system  to ensure  that domestic  laws  are applied  in conformity  with the
provisions  of the Covenant  and that  the latter can be  invoked before the
courts and  applied  by  the other  authorities  concerned.    The  lack  of
publicity given to the provisions of the Covenant and the Optional  Protocol
is also a  matter of concern.  Since  provisions of the Constitution seem to
provide rights and freedoms  to citizens only, the Committee draws the State
party's  attention to its  obligations to  ensure to  all individuals within
its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognized in the Covenant.

66.   The Committee notes  that the non-discrimination clauses in article 11
of the Constitution do not cover all  the grounds provided for in articles 2
and 26  of the Covenant.  It  is particularly disturbed by the fact that the
principle  of non-discrimination  and  equality of  rights  suffers  serious
violations  in practice  and deplores inadequacies in  the implementation of
the prohibition of  the system of castes.   The persistence of practices  of
debt bondage,  trafficking in women, child  labour, and  imprisonment on the

ground  of  inability to  fulfil a  contractual  liability constitute  clear
violations of several provisions of the Covenant.

67.  The Committee  expresses its concern about  the situation of women who,
despite some  advances, continue to  be de jure  or de facto  the object  of
discrimination   as   regards   marriage,   inheritance,   transmission   of
citizenship to  children, divorce, education,  protection against  violence,
criminal  justice, and  wages.   The Committee  is  also concerned  that the
average life  expectancy of women is shorter  than that of  men.  It regrets
the  high  proportion of  women prisoners  sentenced for  offences resulting
from unwanted pregnancies.

68.   The Committee  deplores the  lack of  clarity of the  legal provisions
governing  the introduction  and administration  of  a state  of  emergency,
particularly  article   115  of   the  Constitution,   which  would   permit
derogations  contravening the  State party's  obligations under  article  4,
paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

69.   The  Committee  is  deeply concerned  about the  cases of  summary and
arbitrary executions,  enforced or  involuntary disappearances, torture  and
arbitrary or unlawful detention committed by  members of the army,  security
or other forces during  the period under  review which have been brought  to
its attention.   It  deplores  that those  violations were  not followed  by
proper inquiries or investigations, that the  perpetrators of such acts were
neither brought  to justice  nor punished,  and that  the  victims or  their
families  were not  compensated.   It regrets  that the  draft laws  against
torture  and ill-treatment of the  person and on the compensation of victims
of  torture  have  not  yet  been  adopted.    Moreover,  the quasi-judicial
authority of the Chief District Officer  and the insufficient protection  of
the independence of the judiciary undermine  the efforts aimed at preventing
the recurrence of such acts.

70.   The Committee  notes with  concern the excessive  restrictions on  the
right to  freedom of expression and  information and  the restrictions which
apply to the manifestation of religion and to change of religion.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

71.  The Committee recommends that  the legislative reforms presently  under
way  in Nepal  be  expanded and  intensified in  order  to ensure  that  all
relevant legislation is in conformity with the Covenant.   It emphasizes the
need  for the  provisions of  the  Covenant to  be fully  incorporated  into
domestic law  and made enforceable by  domestic courts.  The necessary steps
should be  taken to give  effect to the  rights recognized  in the Covenant.
The  text  of  the  Covenant  and  the  First  Optional  Protocol should  be
translated  into  all  languages  spoken  in  Nepal, widely  publicized  and
included  in  school curricula,  to  ensure  that  the  provisions of  these
instruments  are  widely known  to  members  of  the  legal profession,  the
judiciary and law  enforcement officials, as well  as to the general public.
The   legal  profession   and  non-governmental   organizations  should   be
encouraged to contribute to the process of reform.

72.  The Committee stresses the need to take appropriate action  in order to
ensure  the  effective  application of  articles 2  and  3 of  the Covenant,
particularly  through  the   adoption  of  administrative  and   educational
measures  designed   to   eliminate   traditional  practices   and   customs
detrimental  to the well-being and status of women  and vulnerable groups of
Nepalese society.

73.  The Committee recommends that  appropriate information be gathered  and
educational  measures  be taken  to  eradicate  practices  of debt  bondage,
trafficking in women and child labour.   Prison reforms now envisaged should
be accelerated.

74.   The Committee  recommends that  the authorities  adopt legislation  to

bring its  domestic legal  regime into  harmony with  its obligations  under
article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

75.   The Committee  urges the  Government of  Nepal to  take all  necessary
measures  to prevent  extra-judicial  and summary  executions,  enforced  or
involuntary disappearances, torture  and degrading treatment and illegal  or
arbitrary detention.    The Committee  recommends  that  all such  cases  be
systematically investigated  in order  to bring  those  suspected of  having
committed such acts before the courts and that the victims be compensated.

76.   The Committee  recommends that  Nepal study  measures directed towards
the abolition of the  death penalty, and give  consideration to accession to
the Second Optional Protocol.

 77.  The Committee also recommends that the  necessary measures be taken by
the  Government to give  effect to the separation  of executive and judicial
functions and to  ensure the full independence and proper functioning of the
judiciary. The texts of the  draft laws against torture and ill-treatment of
the  person as  well  as  on compensation  of victims  of torture  should be
brought into line  with the provisions of the  Covenant and adopted as  soon
as  possible.  Specifically  targeted training  courses on  human rights for
law enforcement  officials, members  of the  judiciary, and  members of  the
police and security forces should be organized.

78.   The  Committee  calls  upon the  State  party  to prepare  its  second
periodic report in compliance with the  Committee's guidelines regarding the
form and  contents  of State  party  reports  (CCPR/20/Rev.1).   The  report
should,  in particular,  include detailed  information on the  specific laws
applicable  to each  right protected  under the  Covenant and  the extent to
which each right is enjoyed in practice, and  refer to specific factors  and
difficulties  that might  impede  its  application.    In  undertaking  this
obligation, the State  party may avail itself  of the Advisory Services  and
Technical  Assistance  Programmes  of the  United Nations  Centre  for Human
Rights.


B.  Tunisia

79.    The  Committee  considered  the  fourth  periodic  report  of Tunisia
(CCPR/C/84/Add.1) at  its 1360th  to  1362nd  meetings, held  on 18  and  19
October 1994, and adopted 10/ the following comments:


1.  Introduction

80.  The  Committee welcomes the  timely submission  of the fourth  periodic
report of Tunisia and appreciates the promptness with  which the State party
continues to meet its reporting obligations under the Covenant.  The  report
contains   useful  and  detailed  information  on  measures   taken  by  the
Government,   particularly   with   regard   to   legislative   reform   and
institutional  developments  affecting  the  application  of  the  Covenant.
However,  the Committee notes  that the  report does  not contain sufficient
information on  factors and difficulties  encountered in the  implementation
of the Covenant.

81.   The Committee  also welcomes  the presence, during  the examination of
the  report,  of   a  high-level   and  competent   delegation  of   experts
knowledgeable  in  the implementation  of  the  Covenant  in  Tunisia.   The
delegation provided much useful and updated information which facilitated  a
constructive dialogue with the State party.


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
                of the Covenant

82.   The  Committee is  aware  that  Tunisia is  in a  period of  economic,

political  and social transition  and that  it has to face  the challenge of
extremist movements.


3.  Positive aspects

83.    The  Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  the  attempt  to  build  a
comprehensive  constitutional and  legal  framework for  the  promotion  and
protection  of human  rights.   The  Committee  welcomes recent  progress in
enhancing  and strengthening that  framework, notably the establishment of a
number of  human rights posts, offices and units within the executive branch
with a  view to  ensuring greater  conformity of  Tunisian law and  practice
with the Covenant and other international human rights instruments.

84.  The Committee also notes  with satisfaction recent legislative  reforms
aimed  at bringing Tunisian law into closer harmony with the requirements of
the Covenant.   In this  connection, the Committee  welcomes changes in  the
Penal  Code which  have reduced  the  duration  of preventive  detention and
strengthened  sanctions in cases  of family violence directed against women.
The Committee  also welcomes recent reforms in the Personal  Status Code and
other laws  aiming to guarantee and reinforce the equal rights of women in a
number  of  areas,  including  divorce,  custody  and  maintenance,  and  to
strengthen the protection of women against violence.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

85.  The Committee cannot conceal  its disappointment with the deterioration
in the  protection of human rights  in Tunisia in  the period under  review.
It  is  concerned, in  particular, about  the  growing  gap between  law and
actual practice with regard to guarantees  and safeguards for the protection
of human  rights. Although  there is  now in  place an  impressive array  of
State organs  for the  promotion and protection  of human rights  at various
levels, the  Committee notes  that they  have been  concentrated exclusively
within the  executive branch  of the  Government.   Consequently, it  is not
clear  whether there  are  sufficiently independent  mechanisms  within  the
public  administration and the  judiciary to effectively monitor and enforce
the  implementation  of  existing  human  rights  standards,  including  the
investigation of abuses.

86.   The Committee  is particularly  concerned about  continuing reports of
the  abuse,  ill-treatment  and torture  of detainees,  including  deaths in
custody under  suspicious circumstances.    In this  connection, it  appears
that Tunisian  regulations are not  strictly adhered to with  respect to the
prompt  registration of  persons  arrested, the  immediate  notification  of
family  members,  the  limitation  of  pre-trial  detention  to  the  10-day
maximum, the  requirement of  medical examinations  whenever allegations  of
torture or other abuse  are made and  the carrying  out of autopsies in  all
cases of  death in custody.   It is  also not clear whether  these and other
requirements  are being  systematically monitored  or whether investigations
are  automatically   undertaken  in   all  cases  where  there   are  either
allegations or  suspicious circumstances  indicating that  torture may  have
taken place.  The  Committee is also concerned that present laws are  overly
protective  of  government  officials,  particularly  those  concerned  with
security  matters;  it  is  particularly  concerned  that  those  government
officials who have been  found guilty of wrong-doing remain anonymous to the
general public, becoming immune from effective scrutiny.

87.   The Committee is  concerned about the  independence of the  judiciary.
It  is also  concerned by  the reports  on  harassment  of lawyers  who have
represented  clients accused of  having committed  political offences and of
the  wives and  families of  suspects.   With respect  to article  6 of  the
Covenant,  the Committee is  concerned about the  large number  of crimes in
Tunisia for which the death penalty may be imposed.

88.   The Committee regrets that, despite the significant progress which has

been achieved regarding the  equal rights of women, there remain a number of
outdated  legal  provisions  that  are  contrary  to  the  Covenant.   Those
provisions concern  the status of  married women and  their equal  rights in
matters  of child  custody,  the transmission  of  nationality  and parental
consent  for  the  marriage  of minor  children.    The  Committee  is  also
concerned about  legal discrimination  against non-Muslims  with respect  to
eligibility for public office.

89.    The  Committee  is  concerned  that  dissent  and  criticism  of  the
Government are  not fully  tolerated in  Tunisia and  that, as  a result,  a
number of  fundamental freedoms  guaranteed by  the Covenant  are not  fully
enjoyed in practice.  In particular, it regrets  the ban on the  publication
of  certain foreign  newspapers.  The  Committee  is  concerned  that  those
sections  of  the Press  Code  dealing  with  defamation,  insult and  false
information unduly limit the exercise of  freedom of opinion and  expression
as provided for  under article 19 of the  Covenant.  In this connection, the
Committee  is  concerned  that  those  offences  carry  particularly  severe
penalties when criticism is directed  against official bodies as well as the
army or  the administration, a situation  which inevitably  results in self-
censorship by the  media when reporting  on public affairs.   The  Committee
also  notes  with  concern that  it  is  not  clear  how  procedures  ensure
independent review on the merits, including  judicial appeal, in cases where
those provisions of the Press Code have been invoked.

90.   The Committee  is concerned  that the  Associations Act  may seriously
undermine the  enjoyment of  the freedom  of association  under article  22,
particularly  with  respect  to  the  independence  of  human  rights   non-
governmental  organizations.   In this connection, the  Committee notes that
the Act has  already had an adverse impact  on the Tunisian League for Human
Rights.   The  Committee believes  that the  Political  Parties Act  and the
conditions  imposed  on the  activities  of  political  parties  are not  in
conformity with articles 22 and  25 of the Covenant.   The Committee is also
concerned that,  under the Passport Act, the grounds for refusing a passport
are not  clearly specified by law in  a way that complies with article 12 of
the Covenant, leaving open the possibility  of refusal on political or other
unacceptable grounds.

91.   The Committee  is concerned  that, while  generally there  is a  well-
protected  freedom to practise  and manifest  one's religion,  this right is
not made available in respect of all beliefs.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

92.    The  Committee  recommends  that  steps be  taken  to  strengthen the
independence of human rights institutions in  Tunisia and thereby close  the
gap between  law and practice and  enhance the confidence  of the public  in
those  institutions.  The  Committee  emphasizes   that  the  work   of  the
"mediateur administratif",  the Presidential Human  Rights Commissioner  and
any  commission investigating  reports  of  human rights  abuses  should  be
transparent  and the  results should  be made  public.   The Committee notes
that  a better  balance is  needed  between  State and  private institutions
concerned with human rights and, in that connection, suggests  that steps be
taken  to  provide  more  encouragement  to  human  rights   nongovernmental
organizations  in Tunisia.   The  Committee  also  recommends that  steps be
taken  to strengthen  the independence  of the  judiciary, particularly from
the executive branch.
  93.   The  Committee strongly  recommends  that  the State  party consider
ratifying or  acceding to the First  Optional Protocol  to the International
Covenant  on Civil and  Political Rights.  Acceptance  of the First Optional
Protocol  would strengthen the  capacity of  the Government  with respect to
inquiries  into allegations  of human  rights abuses  and also  in regard to
further elaborating jurisprudence relating to human rights matters.

94.   With  respect  to  reports of  torture  and abuse  of  detainees,  the
Committee strongly recommends closer monitoring  of the arrest and detention

process;  systematic,  prompt   and  open  investigation  into  allegations;
prosecution  and  punishment  of  offenders;  and  the  provision  of  legal
remedies for  victims.  There should  be strict  enforcement of registration
procedures,  including prompt  notification  of family  members  of  persons
taken  into custody,  and the 10-day  limit to preventive  detention.  Steps
should also be taken to ensure  that medical examinations are  automatically
provided following  allegations of  abuse  and that  thorough autopsies  are
performed  following   any  death   in  custody.     In   all  cases   where
investigations are undertaken, the findings should be made public.

95.   The  Committee also  recommends that  the State  party take  steps  to
reduce  the number of crimes for which the death  penalty may be imposed and
envisage acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

96.    With respect  to  discrimination,  the  Committee  recommends that  a
further  review  of  relevant  legislation  be  undertaken  with  a  view to
amending the law where  necessary in order to bring it into conformity  with
the requirements of the Covenant.   Such a review should focus on the  equal
rights of  women, particularly  in regard  to their  parental and  custodial
rights and the  transmission of nationality,  as well as  on existing  legal
impedimentsto theequal participationofnon-Muslims inpresidential elections.

97.  The Committee recommends that measures be taken to ensure the  exercise
of freedom of opinion  and expression in accordance  with article 19  of the
Covenant. In  particular, there should be  a review  and, where appropriate,
amendment  of  those provisions  of  the  Press  Code  which unduly  protect
government policy  and officials from criticism.   Provision  should also be
made for  independent judicial  review of  all sanctions  imposed under  the
relevant act.

98.   The  Committee  also  recommends that  a review  be undertaken  of the
Associations Act, the Passport  Act and the Political Parties Act to  ensure
that they  are in  full conformity  with the requirements  of the  Covenant.
With respect to freedom  of religion, the Committee recommends that there be
close  and independent  monitoring of  the  exercise  of that  right by  all
groups in  Tunisia. The  Committee emphasizes  that its  General Comment  on
article 18 should be reflected in government policy and practice.


C.  Morocco

99.    The  Committee  considered  the  third  periodic  report  of  Morocco
(CCPR/C/76/Add.3   and   Add.4)   at   its   1364th   to   1366th   meetings
(CCPR/C/SR.1364 to 1366),  held on 20 and 21  October 1994, and adopted  11/
the following comments:


 1.  Introduction

100.  The  Committee welcomes  the opportunity to  resume its dialogue  with
the State  party and thanks the  Government for  its report (CCPR/C/76/Add.3
and  Add.4) and core  document (HRI/CORE/1/Add.23).   The Committee regrets,
however,  that although the  report contained  detailed information  on laws
and  regulations  giving  effect  to  the   Covenant,  it  did  not  include
sufficient  information about the implementation of the Covenant in practice
or  about  factors   and  difficulties  affecting  the  application  of  the
Covenant.

101.   The delegation provided valuable  additional information  on a number
of issues  not covered in the report which enabled the Committee to obtain a
better  understanding  of the  human  rights  situation  in  Morocco.   This
enhanced the dialogue between the delegation and the Committee.


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

102.  The Committee recognizes that  the State party has embarked on a wide-
ranging process of amending its domestic  legislation to bring it  into line
with the Covenant.   The process has not yet been completed and steps remain
to be  taken to  harmonize the Constitution  with the  Covenant and  develop
democratic   institutions   and   human   rights    machinery   for   better
implementation of  the Covenant.   The  remnants of  certain traditions  and
customs constitute  an  obstacle  to  the effective  implementation  of  the
Covenant, particularly with regard to equality between men and women.


3.  Positive aspects

103.   The Committee  recognizes that  the  attitude of  the Government  has
recently changed towards a greater openness in its  handling of human rights
issues, including  its reporting  obligations under  the Covenant.   In  the
latter  regard, some frank  oral answers  given during  the consideration of
the  report  to  questions  raised  by  members  regarding  issues  such  as
disappearances,  the  existence  of  the  Tazmamart  detention  centre,  the
whereabouts  of persons  previously detained  therein  and  the fate  of the
Oufkir family were appreciated.

104.   The Committee welcomes the  numerous measures taken during the period
under  review to improve  democracy and  institute a  legal environment more
favourable to the promotion and protection  of human rights.   The Committee
notes with satisfaction the promulgation in  1992 of an amended Constitution
and the amnesty of  a number of political prisoners.  Compensation is  being
paid to certain persons illegally detained.  The  Committee was also glad to
learn of the commutation of death  sentences to life imprisonment sentences,
the establishment of the Constitutional Council  and the Economic and Social
Council,  the holding on  27 September  1993 of  parliamentary elections and
the  holding  of  a  national  symposium  on  problems  affecting  the news,
information and  communication services  to recommend  modifications in  the
legislation to,  inter alia,  bring it  into line  with international  human
rights  standards, which constitute  steps to  consolidate the  rule of law.
Some progress  has been made  in the  promotion of  the status of  women and
women have  been elected to  Parliament for the  first time.   The Committee
also welcomes  the information that  measures have been  taken to teach  the
Covenant and other international human rights  instruments to members of the
judiciary  and  the police.    The  freedom  now  given to  non-governmental
organizations to be active in the country is also a matter of appreciation.
 
4.  Main subjects of concern

105.   The Committee notes  that the Constitution does  not contain specific
provisions  as  to  the  relationship  between  international  treaties  and
domestic law.  Accordingly, there  is a need to better  define the place  of
the Covenant within the  Moroccan legal system to  ensure that domestic  law
is applied in conformity with the provisions of the Covenant.

106.   The Committee is concerned  about Morocco's role  with regard to  the
persistent problems regarding self-determination in Western Sahara.

107.    The Committee  regrets  that,  although  some  improvement has  been
achieved as  regards the  status  of women,  the  State  party has  not  yet
embarked  on all  the necessary  reforms  to  combat the  difficulties still
impeding equality  between men  and women.   The  Constitution provides  for
equality only in the  area of political rights,  and the situation  of women
in both  public and  private law continues  to be  de jure or  de facto  the
object of discrimination as regards the right to leave the country,  freedom
to   pursue  commercial  activities,  personal  status,  marriage,  divorce,
inheritance rights, transmission  of nationality, education, access to  work
and participation in the conduct of public affairs.

108.   The Committee is  concerned that the categories  of crimes punishable
by the  death penalty include crimes  in respect of  which, by reference  to
article 6 of the Covenant, the death penalty should not be imposed.

109.   Despite the  amnesty of  political prisoners  and the destruction  of
certain  unregistered  places  of  detention,  the  Committee  continues  to
deplore that a large  number of cases of  summary and arbitrary  executions,
enforced or  involuntary disappearances, torture  and arbitrary or  unlawful
detention  committed by  members of  the  army, including  cases  concerning
persons previously  detained in  Tazmamart, have not yet  been investigated.
Furthermore, the perpetrators of such acts  were neither brought to  justice
nor punished.   The  Committee deplores  that measures  of clemency  adopted
during the  period  under review  were  generally  not extended  to  Western
Sahara.

110.  The Committee  is concerned that  guarantees contained in articles  9,
10 and  14 of the  Covenant are not complied with.   Despite some efforts to
build  new prisons,  the Committee  remains  concerned about  conditions  of
detention, particularly  overcrowding of prisons,  which frequently lead  to
malnutrition, diseases and deaths of detainees.   Concern is also  expressed
about the long period  of detention without charge under article 154 of  the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which  appears to be incompatible with article 9
of  the Covenant.   The Committee  is also concerned about  the obstacles to
the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

111.  The Committee  is concerned about the full implementation of the right
to  freedom of  movement, including  in  particular the  restrictions  still
imposed on members of the Oufkir family.

112.  The Committee notes with regret the shortcomings in the observance  of
article  18 of the  Covenant, in  particular the  restrictions affecting the
Baha'i right to  profess and practise their belief and limitations on inter-
religious marriage.   Concern  is also  expressed at  the impediment  placed
upon the freedom to change one's religion.

 113.  The Committee  expresses concern about the extent of the  limitations
on the  freedom of expression,  assembly and association under  the Dahir of
1973 and  especially limitations on the  right to  criticize the Government.
Governmental  control of  the media  as  well  as the  imprisonment of  some
journalists for having expressed criticisms give rise to serious concern.

114.  The Committee is concerned that the electoral system, under which  two
thirds  of members  of the  House of  Representatives are elected  by direct
universal suffrage and one third  by an electoral college,  may raise issues
as  to  the  requirements,  under  article  25  (b)  of  the  Covenant, that
elections be held  by "universal and  equal suffrage".   The  wide scope  of
executive power in the  hands of the King has implications for the effective
independence of the judiciary and the democratic processes of Parliament.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

115.   The Committee recommends that the State party consolidate the process
of constitutional revision  in order to ensure  that all the requirements of
the  Covenant  are  reflected  in  the Constitution,  thereby  bringing  the
Constitution into  true compliance with the  Covenant and  ensuring that the
limitations imposed  on the exercise of  rights and  freedoms under national
legislation do not go beyond those permitted under the Covenant.

116.  The Committee  hopes that the Government of Morocco will give  serious
consideration to becoming a party to the First Optional Protocol.

117.  The Committee further recommends that Morocco study measures to  limit
the  categories  of crimes  punishable  by the  death  penalty to  the  most
serious offences, with a view to its eventual abolition.

118.  The Committee  emphasizes the need for  the Government to  prevent and
eliminate  discriminatory attitudes  and  prejudices towards  women  and  to
revise domestic legislation to  bring it into conformity with articles 2,  3
and 23  of the Covenant, taking  into account  the recommendations contained

in  the Committee's general comments Nos. 4, 18 and 19.   It recalls in that
regard that, although several reservations were  made by Morocco in acceding
to the Convention on the Elimination of All  Forms of Discrimination against
Women, Morocco  remains bound  to the fullest  extent by  the provisions  of
articles 2, 3, 23 and 26 of the Covenant.

119.   The Committee  recommends that  the Moroccan  authorities ensure that
summary  and arbitrary  executions, enforced  or involuntary disappearances,
torture, ill-treatment  and illegal  or secret  detention do  not occur  and
that any  such cases  be investigated  in order  to bring before  the courts
those  suspected of  having committed  or  participated  in such  crimes, to
punish them if found  guilty, and to provide  compensation to victims.   The
Committee expresses the wish  that any measures of  clemency be granted on a
non-discriminatory  basis  in conformity  with  articles  2  and  26 of  the
Covenant.  It also recommends that  measures of administrative detention and
incommunicado  detention  be restricted  to  very  limited  and  exceptional
cases, and that the guarantees concerning  pre-trial detention provided  for
in article 9, paragraph  3, of the Covenant  be fully implemented.   Further
measures   should  also  be  taken  to  improve  detention  conditions  and,
particularly, to ensure that the United  Nations Standard Minimum Rules  for
the Treatment  of Prisoners are complied  with and  the relevant regulations
and directives  known and  accessible to  prisoners.   Proposed measures  to
strengthen  the presumption of  innocence should  be implemented  as soon as
possible.

120.    The Committee  emphasizes  the  need to  take  further  measures  to
guarantee  the  freedom  of religion  and  to  eliminate  discrimination  on
religious  grounds.   It suggests  in this  connection that the  State party
take into  account the recommendations contained  in the  general comment on
article 18 of the Covenant.

121.  The  Committee recommends that restrictions  imposed on the rights  to
freedom of  expression, assembly and association  under the Dahir of 1973 be
modified and brought into  line with those  permitted under the Covenant  to
ensure their application in conformity with  the Covenant on a non-arbitrary
basis.

122.   The Committee  recommends that the authorities  ensure that the third
periodic  report  of  Morocco  and  the   comments  of  the  Committee   are
disseminated as widely as possible  in order to encourage the involvement of
all sectors concerned in the improvement of human rights.


D.  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

123.   The Committee  considered the  second periodic  report of  the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/28/Add.16)  at its 1275th, 1276th, 1376th and 1377th
meetings, held on 26 October 1993 and  28 October 1994, and adopted  12/ the
following comments:


1.  Introduction

124.  The Committee welcomes the opportunity to  renew its dialogue with the
State party,  as  15 years  have elapsed  between the  consideration of  the
Government's  initial  report  and  the submission  of  its  second periodic
report.   The  Committee, however,  regrets  this  considerable delay.    It
regrets also that the  reporting guidelines have  not been met.  The  report
does not give  sufficient information about the restrictions or  limitations
imposed on rights or about factors  and difficulties affecting the enjoyment
of  rights  and  the  implementation  of the  Covenant  in  the Libyan  Arab
Jamahiriya.    In  addition,  the  report  lacks  information  about  abuses
affecting human rights in the country which  have been acknowledged even  by
the head of State; and also about administrative and  other measures adopted
to give effect to the rights provided for in the Covenant.

125.  The Committee welcomes the  additional written information provided by
the Libyan authorities  to reply to the questions  raised by the members  of
the Committee during the  first part of the  consideration of the  report in
October 1993, while regretting that the  late submission of that information
did not make it possible  to have the document available in all the  working
languages of the  Committee.  The Committee  takes note with satisfaction of
the efforts  made by the Libyan Government to reply to  its questions and to
clarify certain issues, both in writing  and orally through the Government's
representatives.  Those efforts  clearly  indicate the  willingness  of  the
Government to continue the dialogue with the Committee.


       2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

126.   Among the  factors affecting the implementation  of the Covenant, the
Committee  notes  economic  difficulties  and  the  existence  of  extremist
movements. The Committee also notes  that the embargo on air travel, imposed
by the Security Council  on the Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya since April 1992, is
considered  by  the   Libyan  Government  as   a  difficulty  affecting  the
implementation of certain provisions of the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

127.   The Committee notes with  satisfaction that the  Covenant is part  of
the domestic law of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya  and that certain aspects  of
the Covenant have been  included in the Great  Green Charter of Human Rights
of the Jamahiriyan  Era (1988), in the Promotion  of Freedom Act of 1991 and
in the draft Constitution.  It welcomes the  fact that the Covenant has been
published in  the  Official Bulletin  and  publicized  in the  media,  while
noting that the information provided to the Committee was not sufficient  to
clarify the precise application of the  Covenant provisions or the practical
steps open  to people  to enforce rights  or to obtain  remedies in case  of
violation.

128.  The Committee  also notes with satisfaction  the measures taken in the
Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya to overcome  discriminatory attitudes towards  women
and the initiatives  introduced in the country to advance women's rights, to
ensure  their greater  involvement in  public  life  and to  improve women's
equality in employment and in marriage.

129.   The Committee further  welcomes the information  in the report  about
the release  of certain  political and  other prisoners,  the demolition  of
certain prisons,  the  cancellation of  the  lists  of persons  banned  from
travelling and the proposed abolition of the special courts.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

130.    The  Committee  is  seriously  concerned  that  although  the report
mentions the objective of eliminating the death  penalty, a large number  of
offences  remain  punishable  by  the  death  penalty  in  the  Libyan  Arab
Jamahiriya, including  economic crimes and other  crimes which  appear to go
beyond the  limitations of  article 6  (2) of  the Covenant.   The Committee
deplores  that there appears to  be have been  an increase  in the number of
executions in the last year.

131.  The  Committee is seriously concerned  at information it has  received
from  United  Nations  and  other  reliable sources  concerning  summary  or
extrajudicial  execution and  torture  perpetrated by  the  Libyan  security
forces.  It deplores the  introduction of cruel punishments such as flogging
and  amputation.   The  practice  of  arbitrary  arrest  and detention,  the
detention  of persons sentenced after  unfair trials and the  length of pre-
trial detention are also matters of serious concern.  The Committee  regrets
the lack of information about certain identified people  who are said to  be

held in incommunicado detention without trial  for lengthy periods and about
persons who oppose the Government and are said to have disappeared.

132.   The Committee is  also concerned at  certain restrictions imposed  in
the  Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya on the  freedom of opinion  and expression, the
right of assembly and the  right to freedom of association, which are not in
conformity with articles 19,  21 and 22 of the Covenant.  These restrictions
also unduly  limit  the rights  to  participate  in  the conduct  of  public
affairs,  including  the   opportunity  to  criticize  and  to  oppose   the
Government.

133.   Lack of information  makes it difficult  for the  Committee to assess
the  effectiveness in  practice  of  safeguards  protecting  the  rights  of
detainees  and  of  those charged  with  criminal  offences.    The  lack of
independence  of the  legal profession  and  doubts  about the  openness and
fairness of trial procedures remain concerns of the Committee.

134.  In regard  to women the Committee  remains concerned about  their lack
of  equality  in  certain  areas  of  law  such  as  inheritance  rights and
nationality.   It also regrets the  lack of  specific information concerning
the equality of women.

135.  Another  area of concern is that of  freedom of religion.  The  severe
punishments  for heresy  (which are  said not  to  have  been used)  and the
restrictions on the right to change religion appear  to be inconsistent with
article  18 of  the  Covenant.   The  lack of  provision  for  conscientious
objection to military service is another concern.

136.  A general concern of  the Committee is  that in regard to many of  the
rights  under  the  Covenant  the  basic  law  allows  for  broadly  defined
exceptions to these rights  and no information  has been provided as to  the
way in which those exceptions have been incorporated in specific laws or  as
to whether their application is in conformity with the Covenant.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

137.  The Committee  encourages the State party to take the necessary  steps
to  adopt  legislative  or  other  measures to  give  effect  to the  rights
recognized in the Covenant,  as provided for  by article 2, paragraph 2,  of
the latter.   The Committee emphasizes  that these  rights represent minimum
standards  of   universal  application.     This  will  require  a  detailed
examination of  specific laws and  practices to ensure  that they are  fully
consistent with  the Covenant and do  not impose limitations on rights other
than those permitted by the Covenant.

138.   Noting the  statement in the  report that the  objective of  Jamahiri
society is to abolish the death penalty, the Committee encourages the  State
party to move  forward with its plans to  abolish the death penalty so  that
it may accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

139.  The Committee  calls on the Libyan  Arab Jamahiriya to investigate all
allegations  of summary or  extrajudicial execution, disappearances, torture
and incommunicado detention,  including those referred to by the  Committee,
and to ensure  that those responsible for violations  of articles 6, 7 and 9
of the  Covenant are prosecuted and  that appropriate  remedies are provided
to the victims.  It should  implement effective measures to  prevent further
violations of  those  provisions of  the Covenant  and  to  ensure that  the
rights of detainees  are respected and that  the requirements of fair  trial
are met.

140.  The  Committee recommends that the State  party review its laws  which
impose  limitations  on freedom  of  opinion,  expression,  association  and
assembly, to  ensure that the restrictions on those freedoms  conform to the
limits permitted under articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

 141.  The Committee  urges the State  party to continue with its  programme
to secure  full legal  and de facto  equality for  women in  all aspects  of
society.  It should also ensure that its  obligations to respect freedom  of
religion  in accordance with article  18 of the  Covenant are  met.  In this
connection, the Committee draws attention to  its general comment on article
18 of the Covenant.

142.  The Committee finally recommends  that more detailed information about
specific laws and more concrete and  factual information about the enjoyment
of  rights be provided  by the  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in  its next periodic
report so  as to  enable the  Committee to clearly  understand the  progress
made in the implementation of the Covenant in the State party.

143.   The Committee  urges the  State party  to discharge,  in future,  its
reporting obligations  under article  40 of the  Covenant on  a more  timely
basis.


E.  Argentina

144.   The  Committee considered  the  second  periodic report  of Argentina
(CCPR/C/75/Add.1) at its 1389th  to 1391st meetings, held on 21 and 22 March
1995 (see  CCPR/C/SR.1389 to  1391), and  adopted, 13/  the following  final
comments:


1.  Introduction

145.   The Committee welcomes  the second  periodic report submitted  by the
State party  and views with satisfaction  the frank  and constructive manner
in which the dialogue  with the Committee  has been conducted.  It  welcomes
in  particular  the   comprehensive  answers  provided  by  the   high-level
delegation  representing the  State party.    None  the less,  the Committee
expresses its  regret that  the  report does  not adequately  deal with  the
factors   and  difficulties   encountered   with  regard   to   the   actual
implementation of the Covenant.  The  Committee notes that this  shortcoming
was compensated  in part by the  oral update of the  report, as well as  the
oral replies provided  to the list of issues  and other questions raised  by
the Committee during the consideration of the State party's report.


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

146.  The Committee notes  that the compromises made by the State party with
respect to its authoritarian past, especially  the Law of Due  Obedience and
Law of Punto Final  and the presidential pardon  of top military  personnel,
are inconsistent with the requirements of the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

147.  The Committee notes with  satisfaction Argentina's continuous progress
in its  efforts to  democratize  and to  match  its  level of  human  rights
protection with international standards.  Although  much work remains to  be
done  in  this  area,  legislative  developments  since 1983  indicate  that
Argentina is  committed to  the protection  of human  rights at  the highest
levels.   In  this  connection, the  Committee  welcomes  the constitutional
reforms of  August 1994,  which elevate several  international human  rights
instruments, including  the Covenant and  the First Optional Protocol, above
national laws and  grants them constitutional  status (arts. 31 and  75 (22)
of  the Constitution).  The  Committee further welcomes  the creation of the
post  of "Defender of  the People", which  was established  in December 1993
under  Act 24,284.    This  post is  responsible for  the protection  of the
rights  of  the  Argentine  people  against  possible  infringement  by  the
national authorities.

148.  The Committee welcomes the  programmes established for the advancement
of women's  equality and particularly welcomes  the recognition  on the part
of the State party of violence against women as a matter of concern.

149.    The  Committee  welcomes  the   enactment  of  Act  24,043  granting
compensation to those who were  detained by order of the Executive.  It also
welcomes Act 24,411 which grants some  benefits to relatives of  disappeared
persons.

150.   The Committee  welcomes the  revisions made  to the Code  of Criminal
Procedure, those  which are under way  to the Code  of Civil Procedure,  the
reform of  the prison  system and  the establishment  of the  Office of  the
Government Procurator for the Prison System.   It also welcomes  the efforts
by the  State party to rehabilitate  convicted prisoners  and construct more
facilities to alleviate prison crowding.

151.    The  Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  the  elimination  in  the
constitutional reforms  of 1994 of the  qualification that  the President of
the Republic must be Catholic.

152.  The Committee also notes with satisfaction  that the Ministries of the
Interior  and of  Foreign  Affairs  are  conducting  human  rights  training
programmes  for  law   enforcement  officials,  personnel  engaged  in   the
administration of justice, and the general public.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

153.   The Committee  reiterates its  concern that  Act 23,521  (Law of  Due
Obedience) and Act  23,492 (Law  of Punto  Final) deny  effective remedy  to
victims of human rights violations, in violation of article  2, paragraphs 2
and  3, and  article 9,  paragraph  5, of  the Covenant.   The  Committee is
concerned  that  amnesties and  pardons  have  impeded  investigations  into
allegations of crimes committed  by the armed forces  and agents of national
security services and  have been applied  even in  cases where there  exists
significant  evidence of  such gross  human  rights violations  as  unlawful
disappearances  and detention of persons, including children.  The Committee
expresses  concern  that  pardons  and  general  amnesties  may  promote  an
atmosphere  of  impunity   for  perpetrators  of  human  rights   violations
belonging to the security  forces.  Respect for human rights may be weakened
by impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations.

154.    In  the  latter  connection,  the  Committee  regrets  that evidence
presented to  the Senate against  members of the armed  forces, proving that
they  have  engaged  in  extrajudicial  executions,  forced  disappearances,
torture, or other violations  of human rights, may in some cases prevent the
promotion of those accused but does not in itself cause their dismissal.

155.  The Committee  is concerned about threats to members of the judiciary,
which  through intimidation  seek  to  compromise the  independence  of  the
judiciary  as set forth  in article 14  of the  Covenant.   The Committee is
further concerned about attacks  against journalists and  unionists, and the
lack  of protection afforded to  them, which restricts the  enjoyment of the
rights of expression and association provided for in  articles 19 and 22  of
the Covenant.
  156.  While the  Committee welcomes Act 24,043 and Act 24,411, it  regrets
that they  do not  provide for  compensation for  victims of  torture.   The
Committee expresses concern about cases of  excessive use of force,  torture
and arbitrary or unlawful detentions committed by members of the police  and
the armed  forces which have been brought to its attention.  It is concerned
that there  is no  clear mechanism  for investigating  complaints of  police
violence that ensures there will be  no reprisals against complainants, that
where  provincial administrations  are lax  in dealing  with allegations  of
police violence  the federal authorities do  not ensure  compliance with the
Covenant,  and that the  perpetrators of  acts of  police violence generally
are not punished and the victims are not  compensated.  It expresses concern

about the  delay  in resolving  the  situation  of children  of  disappeared
persons and is especially disturbed at the failure of the report to  provide
any information at all  on the real situation as  it relates to article 7 of
the Covenant.

157.    The  Committee is  concerned  that  the  Penal  Code  appears to  be
deficient in certain key areas that  apparently conflict with the  principle
of presumption  of innocence  (art. 14, para.  2, of the  Covenant).  It  is
concerned about the system of pre-trial detention, which it  considers to be
one of  the remaining vestiges  of authoritarian rule.   The Committee  also
expresses concern that persons may be detained for a period longer than  the
maximum  penalty  allowed by  law  and  regrets,  in  this connection,  that
article  317  of  the  Constitution  does  not  order  their  release.   The
Committee further notes that bail is  established according to the  economic
consequences of the crime committed and not by reference to the  probability
that the defendant will  not appear in court or otherwise impede due process
of  law.  Nor is  it compatible with  the presumption  of innocence that the
length of pre-trial  detention is not  a product  of the  complexity of  the
case  but is  set by  reference  to the  possible length  of sentence.   The
Committee  is also concerned that  accused persons are held  in detention in
the same facilities as convicted persons, and that the grounds for  judicial
authorization of telephone tapping may be too broadly drawn.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

158.   The  Committee recommends  that the State  party, in  accordance with
article   2,  paragraph   2,  of   the  Covenant,  develop   mechanisms  for
compensating  all remaining victims  of past  violations of  human rights by
amending Act 24,043 or enacting appropriate  legislation for the victims  of
such crimes.  The Committee especially  recommends that appropriate care  be
taken in the use  of pardons and general  amnesties so  as not to foster  an
atmosphere  of impunity (see  the Committee's  general comment  No. 7 (16)).
The Committee  recommends  that members  of  the  armed forces  or  security
forces  against  whom sufficient  evidence  of  involvement  in gross  human
rights violations exists be removed from their posts.

159.   The Committee urges the  State party to  continue to investigate  the
whereabouts  of  disappeared persons,  to  complete urgently  investigations
into  the  allegations  of  illegal  adoption  of  children  of  disappeared
persons, and  to take  appropriate action.   It also urges  the State  party
fully  to  investigate  recent  allegations  of  murders  committed  by  the
military  during the  period  of  military rule  and to  take action  on the
findings.

160.  The Committee notes that  the Office of the Under-Secretary-General of
Human and Social Rights falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of  the
Interior, which also regulates the police  forces.  The Committee recommends
that measures to  guarantee the independence of the  Under-Secretary-General
be  taken, particularly  with  respect  to investigations  of  human  rights
violations.
  161.   The Committee  urges that  all necessary steps be  taken to prevent
cases  of  excessive   use  of  force,   torture,  arbitrary   detention  or
extrajudicial execution  by  members of  the  armed  forces or  the  police.
These steps should  include preventive, disciplinary and punitive  measures,
as well as appropriate training. All  violations should be investigated  and
the victims compensated.

162.   The  Committee recommends  that  special  protection be  provided  to
journalists  and members of trade  unions under threat or intimidation so as
effectively to protect the rights provided for  in articles 19 and 22 of the
Covenant.

163.   With  respect  to the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  the  Committee
recommends  that the  system of  pre-trial detention  be carefully reviewed.
Legal safeguards  should be established to  ensure that,  in instances where

pre-trial detention exceeds the maximum applicable  penalty for a crime, the
defendant will be released without qualification.   The Committee urges  the
State party to define clearly the purpose of  pre-trial detention and to set
the  length of detention accordingly, applying the  principle of presumption
of innocence.  It recommends the same consideration in the setting of bail.

164.  The Committee recommends  that the State party  include information in
its next report on the procedures established  to ensure compliance with the
views and recommendations adopted by the  Committee under the First Optional
Protocol,  also bearing  in mind  its  obligations under  article 2  of  the
Covenant.

165.  The Committee recommends that  Argentina include, in its next periodic
report,  information on the  measures adopted  to follow  up on  the present
comments  and  give effect  to  its  suggestions  and  recommendations.   It
further   recommends  that   its  comments   be  widely   disseminated   and
incorporated  into the curriculum  of the  human rights  training programmes
organized for law enforcement officials and administrators of justice.


F.  New Zealand

166.   The Committee  considered the  third periodic  report of New  Zealand
(CCPR/C/64/Add.10 and HRI/CORE/1/Add.33)  at its 1393rd to 1395th  meetings,
held on 23 and  24 March 1995 (see CCPR/C/SR.1393  to 1395) and  adopted 14/
the following final comments:


1.  Introduction

167.  The Committee  expresses its appreciation  to the State party for  its
excellent report,  which contains detailed information  on law and  practice
relating to  the implementation  of the Covenant  and is in  full conformity
with the  Committee's guidelines.  The  Committee appreciates  the fact that
the report  shows continuous  development in  the protection  of rights  and
allows  the  dialogue  with the  Committee  to  take  place  as  an unbroken
continuation of  the examination  of the initial  and second  reports.   The
Committee  is also grateful for the oral responses provided by the competent
delegation and considers  that the  dialogue with the  State party has  been
most fruitful and constructive.

168.   The  Committee  commends  the  State  party  for  the  core  document
(HRI/CORE/1/Add.33),  which  has  been  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  the
consolidated guidelines  for the initial part  of reports to be submitted by
States  parties under  the various  international human  rights  instruments
(HRI/1991/1).

        2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

169.   The Committee finds  that there  are no important  difficulties which
may affect the implementation of the Covenant in New Zealand.


3.  Positive aspects

170.   The Committee  notes with  appreciation the  level of  achievement in
respect of  human  rights in  New Zealand.    It  particularly welcomes  the
positive developments that  have been realized following recommendations  of
the Committee at the end of the consideration  of the second periodic report
of New Zealand. Among these developments,  the Committee notes the accession
to the First Optional  Protocol to the Covenant and the ratification of  the
Second  Optional Protocol  to the  Covenant  following  the adoption  of the
Abolition of the Death Penalty Act, 1989.

171.   The  Committee considers  the adoption  and  entry  into force  on 25

September  1990 of  the  Bill  of Rights  Act, which  expressly  affirms New
Zealand's commitment  to the Covenant and  which provides  a statutory basis
for the protection of human rights and fundamental  freedoms in New Zealand,
as an important step towards the full protection  of the rights set forth in
the Covenant.   The  Committee also  welcomes the  passage into  law of  the
Privacy  Act 1993, which  promotes and  protects individual  privacy, and of
the Human  Rights Act, which  entered into force  on 1  February 1994.   The
latter  Act further enhances  protection of article  2, paragraph  1, of the
Covenant by  extending the  grounds on which  discrimination is  prohibited.
The Act also expands the role of the Human Rights Commission and enables  it
to inquire  into any  matter where it  appears that human  rights have  been
infringed.

172.  The Committee welcomes widely  based legislation to provide protection
against  domestic violence.   The  Committee  is also  pleased to  note  the
provision  of  appeals  procedures  for  refugees  and  that applicants  for
refugee  status are  entitled to  work pending  a decision on  their status.
Planned improvements of prison conditions are also welcome.

173.  The Committee welcomes the  important developments that have  occurred
in relation to the  interests of the Maori.   Among these  developments, the
Committee notes  the  increasing importance  of the  work of  the Treaty  of
Waitangi Tribunal  in dealing  with  Maori claims  against the  Crown.   The
Committee  also appreciates  the fact  that  New  Zealand has  dedicated the
first  year of the International Decade of the  World's Indigenous People to
the  Maori language.   In  this connection,  the Committee  takes note  with
satisfaction of  the adoption  of a  language nest  programme whereby  Maori
language, customs and  values are taught to  pre-school children, as well as
other programmes set up to promote Maori language, art and culture.

174.   The Committee also  welcomes the changes introduced  in the electoral
law  which may  provide  greater  opportunities for  the  representation  of
minority groups, Maori and women.

175.    With  regard  to  the  right  of  self-determination,  the Committee
welcomes the development of local institutions  of government in Tokelau and
the  gradual   delegation  of   powers  to   Tokelauan  authorities,   which
corresponds to  the desire of the  people of Tokelau  to be self-reliant  to
the greatest extent possible.

  4.  Principal subjects of concern

176.   The Committee  regrets that  the provisions of the  Covenant have not
been fully  incorporated into domestic law and given an overriding status in
the legal system.  Article 2, paragraph 2,  of the Covenant requires  States
parties to  take such legislative or  other measures which  may be necessary
to give  effect to  the rights recognized in  the Covenant.  In  this regard
the Committee regrets that certain rights  guaranteed under the Covenant are
not reflected  in the Bill of  Rights, and that it  does not repeal  earlier
inconsistent   legislation  and   has  no   higher  status   than   ordinary
legislation.  The Committee notes  that it is expressly  possible, under the
terms  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  to  enact  legislation  contrary  to  its
provisions and regrets that this appears to have been done in a few cases.

177.    The  Committee  expresses  concern  about  the  absence  of  express
provision for remedies for all those whose rights under the Covenant or  the
Bill of Rights have been violated.

178.   The  Committee  regrets that  the  operation of  the  new  prohibited
grounds  of discrimination, contained in  section 21 of the Human Rights Act
1993, is postponed until  the year 2000.   It  also notes with concern  that
the prohibited grounds of discrimination  do not include all  the grounds in
the Covenant  and,  in particular,  that  language  is  not mentioned  as  a
prohibited ground of discrimination.

179.   The Committee is  concerned about provisions in  the Criminal Justice

Amendment Act  which provide for a  sentence of  indeterminate detention for
offenders convicted of serious crimes who  are likely to repeat such crimes.
The  imposition of  punishment in  respect  of  possible future  offences is
inconsistent with articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.

180.   In relation  to the  right of  freedom of  expression, the  Committee
expresses  its  concern  over  the  vagueness  of  the  term  "objectionable
publication"  and  the fact  that  section  121  of  the  Films, Videos  and
Publications Classification Act  makes the "possession of any  objectionable
publication"  a  criminal offence,  even  if  the  person  concerned has  no
knowledge  or  no  reasonable  cause  to  believe  that  the  publication is
considered to be objectionable.

181.   The  Committee is  concerned about  the fact  that, while  the  Human
Rights Act  contains a provision corresponding  to article  20, paragraph 2,
of  the Covenant, this provision  does not include a prohibition of advocacy
of religious hatred.

182.     The  Committee  regrets  that  despite  improvements,  Maori  still
experience  disadvantages   in  access   to  health   care,  education   and
employment.  The  Committee is also concerned  that the proportion of  Maori
in Parliament  and other high public offices, liberal professions and in the
senior rank of civil service remains low.

183.   The Committee  also regrets  the delay  in the submission  of reports
under  the Covenant  by the  Tokelau and  the Cook  Islands governments  and
reminds  the Government of New Zealand of its obligations under the Covenant
in this regard.




State party

Type of
report


Date due

Years
overdue
Number of
reminders
sentGabon
Initial
Second
Third
20 April 1984
20 April 1989
20 April 1994
11 years
23
12
3Syrian Arab
Republic
Second
Third
18 August 1984
18 August 1989
11 years
23
12Gambia
Second
Third
21 June 1985

21 June 1990
10 years
21
10Lebanon
Second
Third
Fourth
21 March 1986
21 March 1988
21 March 1993
 9 years
20
15
3Suriname
Second
Third
2 August 1985
2 August 1990
10 years
20
10Kenya
Second
Third
11 April 1986
11 April 1991
 9 years
19
9Mali
Second
Third
11 April 1986
11 April 1991
 9 years
19
9Jamaica
Second
Third
 1 August 1986
 1 August 1991
 9 years
15
8Guyana
Second
Third
10 April 1987
10 April 1992
 8 years
17
7Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea
Second
Third
13 December 1987
13 December 1992
 8 years
15
5Equatorial
Guinea
Initial
Second
24 December 1988
24 December 1993
 7 years
13

3Central
African
Republic
Second
Third
 9 April 1989
 7 August 1992
 6 years
12
6Congo
Second
Third
 4 January 1990
 4 January 1995
 5 years
11
1Trinidad and
Tobago
Third
Fourth
20 March 1990
20 March 1995
 5 years
11
1Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines
Second
Third
31 October 1991
 8 February 1993
 4 years
8
5Panama
Third
Fourth
31 March 1992
 6 June 1993
 3 years
7
4Madagascar
Third
Fourth
31 July 1992
 3 August 1993
 3 years
6
4Angola
Special
31 January 1994
 1 year
2Rwanda
Special
31 January 1995
   -1
 5.  Suggestions and recommendations

184.    The Committee  recommends  that  the  State  party take  appropriate
measures  to incorporate all  the provisions  of the  Covenant into domestic
law and to provide remedies for all persons whose rights under the  Covenant
have been violated.

185.  The Committee recommends  that the Bill of Rights be revised in  order
to bring it into  full consistency with the  provisions of the  Covenant and
to give the courts power  as soon as possible to  strike down or  decline to
give effect  to legislation  on the  ground of  inconsistency with  Covenant
rights and freedoms as affirmed in the Bill of Rights.

186.  The Committee  recommends that the  State party revise the  provisions
relating to  "indeterminate sentence of  preventive detention" contained  in
the Criminal  Justice Amendment  Act in  order to  bring the  Act into  full
consistency with articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.

187.  The  Committee equally recommends  amendment of the Films,  Videos and
Publications  Classification   Act  by   a  more   specific  definition   of
"objectionable   publication"  or   by   removing  criminal   liability  for
possession without  knowledge  of or  reasonable  cause  to believe  in  the
objectionability of material.

188.  The Committee expresses the hope that any  decisions to be taken about
future limitations to the entitlement of  Maori to advance claims before the
Waitangi Tribunal  will  take full  account  of  Maori interests  under  the
Treaty of Waitangi.

189.  The  Committee recommends that the  State party include information in
its next report on the  procedures established to ensure compliance with the
views and recommendations adopted by the  Committee under the First Optional
Protocol,  also bearing  in  mind its  obligations under  article  2  of the
Covenant.

190.  The Committee  recommends that the State party review its reservations
relating to articles 10  and 22 of  the Covenant with a view  to withdrawing
them.

191.   The Committee would  appreciate receiving in the next periodic report
information on the  experience gained in applying  the new Electoral Act and
about the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity provisions  and their  effects  on
women's entitlement  to equal  pay and  equal employment  opportunity.   The
Committee  would also  like  to be  informed on  further  activities  of the
National Human  Rights Commission and the  Treaty of  Waitangi Tribunal, and
about progress in prison reform.


G.  Paraguay

192.     The   Committee   considered  the   initial  report   of   Paraguay
(CCPR/C/84/Add.3 and HRI/CORE/1/Add.24)  at its 1392nd and 1396th  meetings,
on 22 and 24 March 1995  (see CCPR/C/SR.1392 and 1396), and  adopted 15/ the
following comments:


1.  Introduction

193.   The Committee  welcomes the  initial  report submitted  by the  State
party  and  views   with  satisfaction  the   cooperative  attitude  of  the
delegation in  engaging in  the dialogue with  the Committee.   It  regrets,
however,  that   the  report,  while   providing  detailed  information   on
prevailing  legislation in  Paraguay,  does  not adequately  deal  with  the
actual  state  of  implementation  of  the  Covenant  in  practice  and  the
difficulties encountered  during implementation.   Although  the information
provided orally by the delegation has addressed some of the concerns of  the
Committee, the Committee  has obtained only a  partial picture of the  human
rights situation in the country.

194.    The  Committee  commends  the  State  party  for  the core  document
(HRI/CORE/1/Add.24),  which  has  been  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  the
consolidated guidelines for the  initial part of reports to be submitted  by
States  parties under  the various  international human  rights  instruments
(HRI/1991/1).


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

195.  The Committee  recognizes that the State party, which is emerging from
a change  of government  in 1989  that ended  a long  period of  dictatorial
rule,  is  undergoing   a  transition   towards  democracy   in  which   the
infrastructure  necessary for  the implementation  of the  Covenant  has not
been fully developed.  The Committee  understands that the many  encouraging
legislative initiatives  with respect to  human rights are being implemented
with  difficulty, and that a  full assessment of  such implementation is not
yet possible.


3.  Positive aspects

196.   The Committee notes with satisfaction  Paraguay's continuous progress
since 1989 in  its efforts to  democratize and  to match its level  of human
rights protection  with international standards.   It particularly  welcomes
the  signing and  ratification of  a  number  of international  human rights
instruments,  including the Covenant  and the  First Optional  Protocol, and
the   legislative  and   administrative  steps   taken  to   advance   their
implementation.  The Committee also commends  the State party for  ratifying
the Covenant without entering any reservations.

197.   The  Committee particularly  welcomes  the  promulgation of  the 1992
Constitution, which incorporates provisions for the protection of civil  and
political  rights   and  grants   constitutional  status  to  a   number  of
international   human  rights  instruments,  including  the  Covenant,  thus
elevating them above national law.

198.  The  Committee further welcomes  the creation of machinery  to receive
complaints and manage various aspects of  human rights issues, including the
Directorate-General  for  Human Rights  under  the  Ministry of  Justice and
Labour, the  Office  of the  Ombudsman,  and  the Human  Rights  Commissions
established in the two Chambers of Congress.

199.   The Committee welcomes the amendments  made to the Civil Code in 1992
and other  relevant legislation that advanced  the equal  enjoyment of civil
and political rights by  women.  It also  welcomes the establishment  of the
Women's Secretariat.

200.   The  Committee appreciates  the  declaration  made by  the delegation
according to which the  Government will not enact any amnesty law, and that,
on the  contrary, concrete  steps have already  or are being  taken to  make
accountable perpetrators  of human rights  abuses under the past dictatorial
regime.   It  notes  in  this regard  that  such  laws, where  adopted,  are
preventing appropriate investigation and punishment of perpetrators of  past
human rights  violations, undermine efforts to  establish respect for  human
rights,  further contribute to  an atmosphere of impunity among perpetrators
of  human   rights  violations,  and   constitute  impediments  to   efforts
undertaken to consolidate democracy and promote respect for human rights.

201.  The Committee notes with  satisfaction the Government's initiative  to
make  public  the  military's archives,  thus enabling  individuals  to file
complaints based on the information contained in those archives.

202.   The  Committee notes  with  satisfaction  the incorporation  of human
rights issues into the formal secondary education curriculum.

203.   The Committee welcomes Paraguay's  efforts to  modernize the judicial
process with  international assistance.   It also notes  that a  revision of
the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure is under way.

204.   The Committee takes note of the will of the State party to ratify the
Second  Optional Protocol  to the  Covenant  on the  abolition of  the death
penalty.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

205.   The Committee  regrets  that no  information was  provided about  the
compensation of victims of human rights violations during the dictatorship.

206.   The Committee  expresses concern  about the  continuing occurrence of
torture  and ill-treatment  of  detainees,  even after  the  restoration  of
democracy  in 1989.  In this  connection,  the  Committee is  concerned that
there  remain   officials  who   are   identified  and   committed  to   the
authoritarian practices of the former regime.

207.   The  Committee is  concerned that, despite  constitutional guarantees
for the  rights of  women, women  continue to receive  unequal treatment  in
Paraguay,  owing  in part  to  outdated  laws  that  clearly contradict  the
provisions of the Covenant. These would  include laws that are  more lenient
in instances of infanticide committed to protect the honour of a woman  than
in  ordinary cases  of  homicide and  laws  that make  distinctions  in  the
punishment  accorded to  persons who rape  or abduct women  depending on the
marital status of  the victim.   It further  notes that  labour laws do  not
adequately protect the rights of women.  It  notes that domestic work, which
is a principal occupation among women, is excluded from minimum wage laws.

208.   The Committee expresses  its concern about  the high  level of deaths
among expectant  mothers referred  to in  the report.   In  this regard,  it
regrets that the State  party could not provide information about the effect
of the enforcement of abortion laws on this high level of deaths.

209.   The Committee is concerned  that national laws  in conflict with  the
Constitution  remain  on  the  books.    In  addition,  some  constitutional
provisions, such as  the right to compensation for violation of rights (art.
39), still require implementing laws.

210.   The  Committee  notes with  concern the  practice  of  not separating
accused  from convicted  persons  in  prisons, which  violates  article  10,
paragraph 2  (a), of the  Covenant.  The  Committee also  notes with concern
that there are not sufficient measures  to limit pre-trial detention,  which
makes such detention a common practice  rather than an exceptional  measure.
In the  view of  the Committee,  the conditions in  the law  do not  provide
sufficient  justification  for  pre-trial  detention in  the  absence  of  a
reasonable possibility of escape from justice or danger to the community.

211.    The  Committee  expresses  concern  about  the  lack  of information
regarding the independence of the judiciary,  principally as to the security
of tenure.

212.  The Committee  is concerned that the predominant role of the  Catholic
Church in  Paraguay  appears to  lead  to  certain de  facto  discrimination
against other religions.

213.   The  Committee  is concerned  that  poverty and  lack  of  education,
particularly among indigenous people, adversely affect many  people in their
ability to enjoy civil and political rights.

214.   The Committee  notes that  the restriction on voting  for students of
military  schools seems to be  an unreasonable restriction on  article 25 of
the Covenant on the right to participate in public life.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

215.   Regarding the  application of  the Covenant,  the Committee  requests
that it  be informed  in future periodic reports  of the State party  of any
instances  that may  arise where  the Covenant  was directly invoked  in the
courts, as well as the results of any such proceedings.

216.  The Committee  commends the State party, in accordance with article 2,
paragraph  2,  of  the  Covenant,  for  its  efforts  to  bring  to  justice
perpetrators of  past human  rights abuses.   It  urges the  State party  to

continue  to investigate  allegations of  human rights violations,  past and
present,  for  which purpose  all  archives  of  the past  regime  should be
carefully  explored.   It  further urges  the  State  party  to act  on  the
findings of its investigations, to bring to justice the perpetrators and  to
provide proper  compensation to  the victims, particularly  with respect  to
continuing  occurrences  of  torture and  ill-treatment  by  the police  and
security forces.  The Committee recommends  that an independent and credible
mechanism be instituted for dealing with  complaints of police violence  and
that the existence of this mechanism be publicized.

217.   The  Committee  urges the  State party  to  comply with  article  10,
paragraph  2 (a), of  the Covenant  by separating in  prison accused persons
from convicted prisoners.  The Committee  further recommends that the  State
party  review its  laws  and  practices concerning  pre-trial  detention  to
ensure that  such detention is  not regarded as  the general  rule and that,
where it is imposed,  its period is subject  to strict limits, in conformity
with article 4 of the Covenant.

218.   The Committee  recommends that all  national legislation  on women be
reviewed with a view to modernizing  the outdated legal standards  currently
in force  to bring  them  into line  with  the  relevant provisions  of  the
Covenant.   The  Committee recommends  in  particular  that the  State party
review its laws on  criminal offences committed against women and all labour
laws that  discriminate against  women and  take the  measures necessary  to
overcome traditional attitudes concerning the role of women  in society.  It
further   recommends  that   the  State   party  encourage   the   political
participation  of women  in public,  particularly in  political life,  which
remains  low despite the  legal advances  that have  reduced restrictions in
this area.

219.  The Committee  requests the State party  to provide information in its
next  report about  the  incidence  of illegal  abortion,  the  relationship
between illegal abortions and the high  incidence of maternal mortality, and
its implementation of article 61 of the Constitution.

220.   The Committee recommends  that the State  party undertake  a thorough
review of its national legislation to  ensure conformity with the  standards
set  by both  the Constitution  and the  Covenant.   It recommends  in  this
connection that  the Covenant and the  specific recommendations  made in the
present  comments be taken  into account  in the revision of  the Penal Code
currently under way.

221.   The Committee  recommends that  the State  party include in  its next
report  comprehensive   information  on   the  issues   raised  during   the
consideration of the report, particularly on  the effectiveness of the  laws
under  review  or in  existence,  the  evolving  roles  of the  institutions
established  for  the  protection  of  human   rights,  and  the  system  of
coordination of the various institutions.

222.  The  Committee recommends that the  State party include information in
its next report on the  procedures established to ensure compliance with the
views and recommendations adopted by the  Committee under the First Optional
Protocol,  also bearing  in  mind its  obligations under  article  2  of the
Covenant.

223.   The Committee  recommends that  the Covenant,  the Optional Protocols
and the Committee's  comments be  widely disseminated  among the  Paraguayan
public and that the  scope of human rights  education be extended to members
of the police  and security forces, the  legal profession and other  persons
involved in  the administration of justice, with  a view to making it a part
of their regular training.


H.  Haiti

224.   In the  light of  past and  continuing events in  Haiti affecting the

human   rights  guaranteed  by  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and
Political Rights, and  in accordance with  article 40,  paragraph 1 (b),  of
the  Covenant,  the Committee  requested  the  Government  of  Haiti, on  27
October  1994, to submit  a special  report, not later than  31 January 1995
and  if   necessary  in   summary  form,  describing   in  particular,   the
implementation of  articles 6, 7,  9, 10  and 14 of the  Covenant during the
current period,  for  consideration  by  the Committee  at  its  fifty-third
session.  In response  to that request, the Government of Haiti submitted  a
report  on  27 February  1995  (CCPR/C/105),  which  was  considered by  the
Committee  at  its  1397th and  1398th  meetings,  on  27  March  1995  (see
CCPR/C/SR.1397 and 1398), which adopted 16/ the following comments:


1.  Introduction

225.  The Committee  welcomes the willingness of the Government of the State
party to  cooperate  and  to enter  into a  constructive  dialogue with  the
Committee on the application of the Covenant in  Haiti, as evidenced by  the
submission of the special report and the  sending of a high-level delegation
to present  the  report. The  Committee  notes  that, while  providing  some
information  about  constitutional  and  legal  measures  giving  effect  to
articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14,  the report lacked information on  the practice
concerning human  rights and on the  difficulties affecting the  application
of the Covenant in the country.  The  Committee, mindful of the difficulties
facing  all branches of  government in  Haiti since  the restoration  of the
legitimate Government, thanks  the delegation for  endeavouring to  reply to
the  questions raised in the course  of the dialogue  and thus, to a certain
extent, make up for the report's shortcomings.


      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

226.   The Committee notes  that Haiti is only now emerging  from a long and
devastating  military  dictatorial past  during  which  grave  human  rights
violations  occurred,  including   summary  executions,  torture  and  other
inhuman or  degrading treatment and arbitrary  arrests and  detentions.  The
country  has  only recently  initiated a  process of  recovery and  has just
embarked  on a  course of  transition to  democracy.  The  Committee further
notes  that, despite  efforts undertaken  by the  Government,  political and
social  attitudes still prevalent  in the country  are not  conducive to the
promotion and  protection of human rights.   Violence  and disorder continue
to  disrupt society  and  many  weapons remain  in the  hands of  members of
former  paramilitary groups  and  the public  in general.    The lack  of  a
functioning  judicial  system,   and  deeply  rooted  social  and   economic
problems, affect the application of the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

227.   The Committee welcomes the  restoration of  the legitimate Government
of Haiti and  the considerable  efforts made  by the  present Government  to
ensure  respect for human rights.   In this connection  the establishment by
presidential decree of a  National Commission on Truth and Justice with  the
task  of  carrying  out  investigations into  human  rights  violations  and
ensuring  justice  for  the  victims  of  such  violations  is  particularly
appreciated.  The  Committee also notes  the creation  of a civilian  police
force separated from the  armed forces as an  important step.  The Committee
appreciates the fact that  programmes for the training of judges and  police
officers are being initiated.

228.   The Committee  notes with satisfaction  the adoption of  a number  of
laws directly  affecting the establishment  and development of  institutions
and policies  for the  protection of  human rights,  such as the  recent Act
declaring all paramilitary groups illegal, the Territorial Communities  Act,
which  eliminates  the  former  autocratic  system  of  section  chiefs  and

provides for  local authorities  elected by  the people,  and the  Electoral
Act.  The  Committee also welcomes the beginning  of the process which  will
lead  to   the  holding  of  parliamentary   elections  in   June  1995  and
presidential elections in December 1995.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

229.  Given the general conditions prevailing at  the present time in Haiti,
the Committee has not detailed all  its concerns relating to inconsistencies
between provisions  of Haitian legislation,  including the Constitution  and
the Covenant.

230.  The Committee  expresses its concern about the effects of the  Amnesty
Act, agreed upon  during the process which led to the return  of the elected
Government of Haiti.   It is concerned  that, despite the limitation of  its
scope to political  crimes committed in  connection with the coup  d'etat or
during  the past regime,  the Amnesty  Act might  impede investigations into
allegations  of human  rights violations, such as  summary and extrajudicial
executions, disappearances, torture  and arbitrary arrests, rape and  sexual
assault,  committed by  the armed  forces  and  agents of  national security
services.   In this  connection, the  Committee wishes to point  out that an
amnesty  in   wide  terms  may  promote   an  atmosphere   of  impunity  for
perpetrators  of  human  rights  violations  and undermine  efforts  to  re-
establish respect for human  rights in Haiti and  to prevent a recurrence of
the massive human rights violations experienced in the past.

231.   The Committee  emphasizes the  importance of  investigation of  human
rights  violations,  determination  of  individual  responsibility and  fair
compensation for the victims, and regrets that  the Commission on Truth  and
Justice has not yet initiated its work.

232.  The Committee  is concerned that failure  to screen and  exclude human
rights violators  from service  in the  military, the  police force and  the
judiciary will seriously  weaken the transition  to security  and democracy.
The  Committee is also concerned that human rights  violations by members of
the  armed  forces, agents  of  security  services,  and  members of  former
paramilitary  groups  still  occur.   The  Committee  notes  with particular
concern the lack  of full and effective control by civilian authorities over
the military.  The Committee  is concerned that the composition, command and
number of the armed forces is not clearly defined.

233.    The  Committee  expresses  its  concern  at  the  numerous  problems
affecting the  proper  functioning of  the  justice  system, including  long
periods of pre-trial detention  and overcrowding of  prisons.  It wishes  to
point out  in this  regard that,  unless a  serious effort is  undertaken to
reform the judiciary and re-establish a  proper functioning of the  judicial
system, efforts  to strengthen the  rule of law  and to  promote respect for
human rights will be seriously undermined.

234.   The  Committee is  concerned  about allegations  of forced  labour of
minors in violation of article 8 of the Covenant.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

235.   In view  of the  fact that  the Amnesty  Act was  adopted before  the
reinstallation  of the legitimate Government, the Committee  urges the State
party to apply that Act in conformity with the Covenant  and to exclude from
its scope the perpetrators of past human rights violations.

236.   The  Committee emphasizes  the  obligation of  the State  party under
article 2,  paragraph 3,  of the  Covenant to  ensure that  victims of  past
human rights  violations have an effective  remedy.   It strongly recommends
that  the Commission  on Truth  and Justice  initiate its  work as  soon  as
possible and  that other  mechanisms be set  up to investigate  human rights

violations  by members of  the police,  the armed forces  and other security
services and  the judiciary to ensure  that persons  closely associated with
human rights abuses do not serve in those offices.

237.   In order  to guarantee the  safety of the  population, the  Committee
recommends that a  clear policy be  implemented to disarm members  of former
paramilitary  groups and  that effective  measures  be  taken to  reduce the
number of weapons in the community.

 238.   The Committee  recommends that  a major  reform of the  judiciary be
undertaken  with  a  view  to  establishing  an  independent  and  impartial
judicial system which will  safeguard human rights  and enforce the rule  of
law.

239.   The Committee strongly  recommends that the  State party confirm  the
ratification  of the Optional  Protocols to  the Covenant  by depositing the
necessary  instruments of  ratification  or accession  with  the  Secretary-
General  of the United Nations.   Acceptance of  the First Optional Protocol
would affirm  the commitment  of the  Government with  respect to  inquiries
into  allegations of  human  rights abuses  and help  to  protect  the human
rights of individuals in the difficult period the country is facing.

240.  The Committee urges that respect for human rights be recognized as  an
essential   element  of   the  process   of  national   reconciliation   and
reconstruction.  To that end,  the Committee  recommends that all provisions
of the Covenant be  fully incorporated into the national legal system;  that
the administration and Parliament, as a confidence-building measure, set  up
special   institutions,  open  to   individuals,  to  assist  in  the  daily
implementation of human  rights; that comprehensive human rights training be
provided  to judges,  the police  and the  military;  and that  human rights
education be provided in schools at all levels.

241.  The Committee urges the State party  to submit information on measures
taken to implement these  suggestions and recommendations  together with the
submission of  the initial report,  which was  due on  6 July 1992,  and for
whose submission the Committee sets the date of 1 April 1996.


I.  Yemen

242.    The  Committee  considered  the  second  periodic  report  of  Yemen
(CCPR/C/82/Add.1)  at its 1372nd  and 1373rd  meetings, on  26 October 1994,
and at its 1403rd  and 1404th meetings,  on 30 March 1995, and  subsequently
adopted 17/ the following comments:


1.  Introduction

243.   The  Committee welcomes the  second periodic report  submitted by the
State  party  and  welcomes  the  delegation's  willingness  to  resume  its
dialogue with the Committee.  The  Committee regrets, however, that although
the report  provides information on general  legislative norms  in Yemen, it
fails to  deal with the actual  state of implementation  of the Covenant  in
practice and the  difficulties encountered in the course of  implementation.
The  Committee  appreciated the  presence of  a  competent delegation  which
provided helpful  information to  the Committee  in addressing  some of  its
questions.  Nevertheless, the Committee has  obtained only a partial picture
of the human rights situation in the country.

244.   The Committee welcomes  in this connection the intention expressed by
the  delegation  to  send   additional  information  as   requested  by  the
Committee, particularly information  on the difficulties encountered in  the
implementation of  the Covenant,  statistics relating  to specific  articles
and the texts of  the Civil Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, the amendments
to the Constitution, and other relevant laws and regulations.

       2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

245.    The Committee  notes  that  the  civil  war  has  left much  of  the
infrastructure  destroyed and  created severe  economic  difficulties, which
have served to  restrict the resources allocated  to the protection of human
rights.    The  Committee   also  notes  that  national  reconstruction  and
reconciliation remains handicapped by internal disorder.

246.  The  Committee notes the existence in  the State party of customs  and
traditions, particularly  in the  area of  equality between  men and  women,
which may  tend to impede the  proper observance  of international standards
of human rights.


3.  Positive aspects

247.  The Committee welcomes the succession of  Yemen to the Covenant, which
was previously acceded to by the Democratic Republic of Yemen in 1986.

248.  The Committee welcomes the Government's efforts to raise awareness  of
human  rights issues by  disseminating the  texts of  human rights treaties,
including the Covenant, and  by holding seminars in this field.  It  further
welcomes the Government's assertion that newspapers  are free to publish the
reports submitted by the Government and  other information released by human
rights groups and international organizations.

249.     The   Committee  welcomes   the  delegation's  indication   of  the
Government's  willingness to  investigate  specific cases  of  human  rights
violations brought to  its attention.  In  this regard, the  Committee notes
the assurances  of the delegation  that the  courts are  receiving cases  of
human rights violations which took place during the civil war.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

250.  The Committee  is concerned that some  aspects of the legal provisions
in the State party do not conform entirely with the Covenant.

251.   The  Committee calls  attention  to  the contradictions  between  the
Covenant and the Constitution, which affords a  lower level of human  rights
protection  than does the  Covenant.   The Committee  expresses concern that
victims of human rights violations, despite  the direct applicability of the
Covenant,  may  be  denied effective  remedy  if the  courts  adhere to  the
standards set forth in the Constitution.

252.   The  Committee notes  with concern  the  general  amnesty granted  to
civilian and  military personnel for human  rights violations  they may have
committed  against civilians during  the civil war.   The Committee notes in
this regard  that some  amnesty laws may  prevent appropriate  investigation
and punishment  of perpetrators  of past human rights  violations, undermine
efforts to  establish respect of human  rights, contribute  to an atmosphere
of impunity among  perpetrators of human  rights violations,  and constitute
impediments  to efforts  undertaken  to consolidate  democracy  and  promote
respect for human rights.

253.  The Committee notes with concern that the role and the competences  of
the political security forces have not been clarified.
  254.    The  Committee  expresses  its  deep  concern  at  allegations  of
arbitrary  deprivation of life,  acts of torture or  other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment,  arbitrary arrest and  detention, abusive treatment  of
persons deprived of  their liberty, and violations of  the rights to a  fair
trial.  It is  deeply concerned that those  violations were not  followed by
inquiries  or investigations, that  the perpetrators  of such  acts were not
punished,  and that  the victims  were  not  compensated.   Ill-treatment of
prisoners and overcrowding of prisons continue to be of concern.

255.    The  Committee  notes  with   concern  reports  of  female   genital
mutilation, which  appears to  be a  common practice  in some  parts of  the
country.   It also notes  with concern that  the provisions  of the Personal
Status  Act No.  20 of  1992,  particularly articles  40 and  41,  establish
unequal  obligations of wives  and husbands where wives  are relegated to an
inferior position.   The  Committee is  concerned that  the requirements  of
this Act, particularly that wives  must obey their husbands'  orders and may
not leave  their homes except in  limited situations,  contradict articles 3
and 23  of the Covenant.   The  Committee further  regrets that the  laws of
Yemen contain no specific provisions for dealing with domestic violence.

256.  The Committee  is concerned about  the lack of information  concerning
the  death  penalty in  Yemen and,  bearing in  mind that  article 6  of the
Covenant  limits the  circumstances under  which  the  death penalty  may be
imposed, regrets that  it is unable to assess whether the State  party is in
conformity  with article 6  due to  the lack of information  on the specific
crimes  that may result in  the imposition of  the death  penalty and on the
number of  cases in  which it  was imposed.   The  Committee deplores  that,
according to information before it, executions of  persons below the age  of
18 have taken place that would be a clear violation  of article 6, paragraph
5, of  the Covenant.   The Committee requests  that the  State party provide
information on  the cases  mentioned during the  dialogue.  In  this regard,
the Committee regrets  that the right to life  has not been incorporated  in
the new  Constitution.   The Committee  is also  deeply concerned  about the
maintenance of corporal punishments  like amputation of  limbs and whipping,
which is in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

257.  The  Committee notes  with deep concern  the widespread employment  of
minors, especially in rural areas.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

258.  The Committee  recommends that a thorough  review be undertaken of the
legal framework  for the protection of  human rights in  the State party  to
ensure full conformity with the Covenant.  The  Committee takes note of  the
indication  by the  delegation of  the lack  of technical  expertise in  the
legal  field in the State party and its appeal  for assistance in this area.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the  State party avail itself  of
the technical  cooperation  services of  the  Centre  for Human  Rights  and
address through the  Centre's programmes the question  of the status  of the
Covenant in relation to the Constitution.

259.   Regarding the  application of  the Covenant,  the Committee  requests
that it  be informed in  future periodic  reports of the State  party of any
instances that  may arise  where the  Covenant was  directly invoked  in the
courts, as well as the results of any such proceedings.

 260.  The Committee  recommends that the State  party endeavour to bring to
justice perpetrators  of human rights abuses,  in accordance  with article 2
(2) of the Covenant.   It urges the State  party to continue  to investigate
allegations of human  rights violations,  past and  present, to  act on  the
findings of its investigations, to bring to justice the  perpetrators and to
compensate the victims of such acts.  To  this end, the Committee recommends
that  an  independent mechanism  be instituted  for receiving  complaints of
human rights  violations  and  that this  mechanism be  given  investigative
authority  to  pursue  such  complaints.  The  Committee  suggests  that the
Government  pursue in this  manner not  only individual  complaints but also
violations   reported  by   national  and   international   non-governmental
organizations.

261.   The Committee  recommends that the  State party review  its laws  and
make appropriate amendments to ensure full legal  and de facto equality  for
women in  all aspects of  society, particularly  in the  laws governing  the
status of women, women's rights and obligations in marriage.  The  Committee
further recommends  that the Government  conduct a study on  the practice of

female  genital mutilation within its territory and formulate specific plans
to eradicate this practice.

262.  The Committee  recommends that the Government review its policy on the
death  penalty  with a  view to  its eventual  abolishment.   Recalling that
article 6 of  the Covenant  limits the circumstances  under which the  death
penalty may  be imposed, it  recommends that  the Government include  in its
next report a list of all  of the crimes that, when tried, may result in the
imposition of the death penalty.  If  the imposition of the death penalty in
respect of some of these crimes is found to be inconsistent with article  6,
the Committee recommends  that the  relevant laws be appropriately  amended.
The  Committee recommends that  the Government  take the  initiative for the
total abolishment of corporal punishment.

263.  The Committee  recommends that the Government  conduct a study  on the
phenomenon of  working children,  especially  children in  rural areas,  and
include its findings in its next periodic report to the Committee.

264.    The  Committee  recommends  that  more  detailed  information  about
specific laws and more concrete and  factual information about the enjoyment
of rights be provided by Yemen  in its next periodic report  so as to enable
the Committee to clearly understand the  progress made in the implementation
of the Covenant in the State party.

265.   The Committee  recommends that  appropriate mechanisms be established
to revise  the relevant legal  codes, to provide  human rights training  for
personnel involved  in the  administration of  justice, to  draft the  State
party's reports to  various human rights  treaty bodies, and to  collect and
analyse data  on  human  rights  issues.    In this  regard,  the  Committee
recommends that the Government draw on  the assistance available through the
Centre for Human Rights technical cooperation services.


J.  United States of America 18/

266.  The Committee  considered the initial report  of the United  States of
America  (CCPR/C/81/Add.4  and HRI/CORE/1/Add.49)  at  its  1401st,  1402nd,
1405th  and 1406th meetings,  held on 29 and  31 March 1995 (CCPR/C/SR.1401-
1402 and SR.1405-1406), and adopted 19/ the following comments:


 1.  Introduction

267.  The  Committee expresses its appreciation at  the high quality of  the
report  submitted by the  State party,  which was  detailed, informative and
drafted in accordance with the guidelines.   The Committee regrets, however,
that,  while   containing  comprehensive   information  on   the  laws   and
regulations giving  effect to  the rights provided  in the  Covenant at  the
federal level, the report contained few  references to the implementation of
Covenant rights at the state level.

268.    The  Committee   appreciates  the  participation   of  a  high-level
delegation which included a substantial number  of experts in various fields
relating to  the protection of  human rights in  the country.   The detailed
information provided  by the delegation in  its introduction  of the report,
as  well  as  the  comprehensive  and  well-structured replies  provided  to
questions raised  by members, contributed  to making  the dialogue extremely
constructive and fruitful.

269.    The Committee  notes  with  appreciation  that  the Government  gave
publicity to  its report,  thus enabling  non-governmental organizations  to
become  aware of its contents  and to make  known their particular concerns.
In  addition,  a  number of  representatives  of  these  organizations  were
present during the Committee's consideration of the report.

      2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the implementation
          of the Covenant

270.   The Committee  notes that, despite  the existence  of laws  outlawing
discrimination, there persist  within society  discriminatory attitudes  and
prejudices based  on  race  or gender.   Furthermore,  the  effects of  past
discriminations in society have not  yet been fully eradicated.   This makes
it difficult to ensure  the full enjoyment of the rights provided for  under
the  Covenant to everyone within  the State party's jurisdiction.   The rise
in crime and violence  also affects the enjoyment of the rights provided for
in the Covenant.

271.  The Committee  also notes that under  the federal system prevailing in
the  United States, the  states of  the union  retain extensive jurisdiction
over  the application  of  criminal and  family  law in  particular.    This
factor, coupled  with the absence of  formal mechanisms  between the federal
and  state  levels to  ensure  appropriate  implementation  of the  Covenant
rights   by  legislative  or   other  measures   may  lead   to  a  somewhat
unsatisfactory application of the Covenant throughout the country.


3.  Positive aspects

272.   The Committee  recognizes the  existence of  effective protection  of
human  rights available to individuals under the Bill  of Rights and federal
laws.   The Committee  notes with satisfaction  the rich  tradition and  the
constitutional framework for the protection of  human rights and freedoms in
the United States.

273.   The  Committee notes  with satisfaction  that  the United  States has
recently   ratified  or   acceded  to   some  international   human   rights
instruments,  including the  Covenant, the  Convention against  Torture  and
Other  Cruel,   Inhuman  or  Degrading   Treatment  or  Punishment  and  the
Convention on the Elimination  of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  These
ratifications reflect  a welcome trend  towards acceptance of  international
scrutiny,  supervision and  control of  the application  of universal  human
rights norms at the domestic level.

274.  The Committee welcomes the efforts of  the Federal Government to  take
measures at the legislative,  judicial and administrative  levels to  ensure
that the states of the union provide  human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It further  appreciates the  expression of  readiness by  the Government  to
take such necessary further  measures to ensure that the states of the union
implement the rights guaranteed by the Covenant.

275.  The Committee  notes with satisfaction that  in the first statement of
understanding  made  at the  time  of  ratification  the  principle of  non-
discrimination   is  construed   by  the   Government  as   not   permitting
distinctions which would not be legitimate under the Covenant.

276.  The Committee takes note of the  position expressed by the  delegation
that,  notwithstanding  the  non-self-executing  declaration  of  the United
States,  American courts are  not prevented  from seeking  guidance from the
Covenant in interpreting American law.

277.  The Committee  further notes with  satisfaction the assurances of  the
Government that  its  declaration regarding  the  federal  system is  not  a
reservation and is not intended to  affect the international obligations  of
the United States.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

278.   The  Committee  has  taken note  of  the  concerns addressed  by  the
delegation in writing to its Chairman  about the Committee's General Comment
No. 24  (52) on  issues relating to  reservations made upon  ratification or

accession   to   the   Covenant   or   the   Optional   Protocols    thereto
(CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6).   Attention  is drawn  to the  observations made by
the  Chairman of  the Committee  at the  1406th  meeting,  on 31  March 1995
(CCPR/C/SR.1406).

279.  The  Committee regrets the  extent of the State  party's reservations,
declarations and  understandings to the Covenant.   It  believes that, taken
together, they intended to ensure that the  United States has accepted  only
what  is  already the  law of  the  United  States.   The Committee  is also
particularly  concerned  at reservations  to  article  6, paragraph  5,  and
article 7  of the Covenant, which  it believes to  be incompatible with  the
object and purpose of the Covenant.

280.  The  Committee regrets that members of  the judiciary at the  federal,
state and  local levels have  not been fully  made aware  of the obligations
undertaken  by  the  State  party  under  the  Covenant,  and  that judicial
continuing  education programmes do  not include  knowledge of  the Covenant
and discussion on its implementation.  Whether or  not courts of the  United
States   eventually   declare  the   Covenant   to   be  non-self-executing,
information about its provisions should be provided to the judiciary.

281.   The Committee  is concerned  about the excessive  number of  offences
punishable by the death penalty  in a number of states, the number of  death
sentences handed down by  courts, and the  long stay on death row  which, in
specific  instances, may amount  to a  breach of article 7  of the Covenant.
It deplores the recent expansion of the death penalty under federal law  and
the  re-establishment  of the  death penalty  in  certain states.   It  also
deplores provisions in  the legislation  of a number  of states which  allow
the death penalty to be pronounced for crimes committed by persons under  18
and  the actual  instances where  such  sentences  have been  pronounced and
executed.  It also regrets  that, in some cases, there appears to have  been
lack of protection from the death penalty of those mentally retarded.

282.  The Committee  is concerned at the  reportedly large number of persons
killed,  wounded or  subjected to  ill-treatment  by  members of  the police
force in the purported discharge of their duties.  It also regrets the  easy
availability of firearms to  the public and the  fact that federal and state
legislation  is  not stringent  enough  in  that  connection  to secure  the
protection  and  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  life  and  security  of  the
individual guaranteed under the Covenant.

283.  The Committee  is concerned that excludable  aliens are dealt  with by
lower standards of  due process than other  aliens and, in particular,  that
those  who  cannot  be  deported or  extradited  may  be held  in  detention
indefinitely.  The situation  of a number of  asylum-seekers and refugees is
also a matter of concern to the Committee.

284.  The  Committee does not  share the  view expressed  by the  Government
that  the Covenant  lacks extraterritorial  reach under  all  circumstances.
Such a view  is contrary to  the consistent interpretation of  the Committee
on this subject, that, in  special circumstances, persons may fall under the
subject-matter jurisdiction of a State party  even when outside that State's
territory.

285.   The Committee is  concerned about conditions of  detention of persons
deprived of  liberty in federal or  state prisons,  particularly with regard
to planned  measures which would lead  to further  overcrowding of detention
centres.  The Committee is also concerned at the  practice which allows male
prison officers  access in women's  detention centres and  which has led  to
serious  allegations  of sexual  abuse of  women and  the invasion  of their
privacy.   The  Committee is  particularly  concerned  at the  conditions of
detention in certain maximum security prisons,  which are incompatible  with
article 10 of the  Covenant and run counter  to the United  Nations Standard
Minimum  Rules for the  Treatment of  Prisoners and the Code  of Conduct for
Law Enforcement Officials.

286.   The  Committee is  concerned  that,  in some  states, non-therapeutic
research may  be conducted on minors  or mentally-ill patients  on the basis
of surrogate consent  in violation of  the provisions  in article  7 of  the
Covenant.

287.   The  Committee is  concerned at  the serious infringement  of private
life  in some states which  classify as a  criminal offence sexual relations
between adult consenting  partners of the same  sex carried out  in private,
and  the consequences  thereof for  their  enjoyment  of other  human rights
without discrimination.

288.  The Committee is concerned about the  impact which the current  system
of  election of judges  may, in a few states,  have on the implementation of
the rights  provided  under article  14 of  the  Covenant  and welcomes  the
efforts of a number of states in the  adoption of a merit-selection  system.
It  is also  concerned about  the fact that  in many rural  areas justice is
administered by  unqualified  and untrained  persons.    The Committee  also
notes the lack of effective  measures to ensure that  indigent defendants in
serious criminal proceedings, particularly in state courts, are  represented
by competent counsel.

289.   The Committee  welcomes the significant  efforts made in  ensuring to
everyone the right to  vote but is  concerned at the considerable  financial
costs  that  adversely affect  the  right  of  persons to  be  candidates at
elections.
  290.    The  Committee  is  concerned  that  aboriginal  rights  of Native
Americans may, in law,  be extinguished by Congress.   It is  also concerned
by  the high  incidence of  poverty,  sickness  and alcoholism  among Native
Americans,  notwithstanding  some   improvements  achieved  with  the  Self-
Governance Demonstration Project.

291.   The Committee  notes with concern  that information  provided in  the
core document  reveals that  disproportionate numbers  of Native  Americans,
African Americans,  Hispanics and  single  parent families  headed by  women
live below the poverty line and  that one in four children under six live in
poverty.   It is  concerned that  poverty and  lack of  access to  education
adversely  affect persons  belonging to  these  groups  in their  ability to
enjoy rights under the Covenant on the basis of equality.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

292.     The  Committee   recommends  that   the  State   party  review  its
reservations, declarations  and understandings  with a  view to  withdrawing
them, in particular reservations  to article 6,  paragraph 5, and article  7
of the Covenant.

293.  The  Committee hopes that  the Government  of the  United States  will
consider becoming a party to the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

294.   The  Committee recommends  that appropriate  inter-federal and  state
institutional mechanisms be established for the  review of existing as  well
as proposed legislation  and other measures  with a view  to achieving  full
implementation of the Covenant, including its reporting obligations.

295.  The Committee  emphasizes the need for the Government to increase  its
efforts to  prevent and  eliminate persisting  discriminatory attitudes  and
prejudices  against   persons  belonging  to   minority  groups  and   women
including, where  appropriate, through the  adoption of affirmative  action.
State  legislation  which  is not  yet  in  full compliance  with  the  non-
discrimination articles  of the  Covenant should  be brought  systematically
into line with them as soon as possible.

296.   The  Committee  urges  the State  party to  revise federal  and state
legislation with a view  to restricting the number of offences carrying  the
death penalty  strictly  to the  most  serious  crimes, in  conformity  with

article  6 of the Covenant and with a view eventually  to abolishing it.  It
exhorts  the authorities to  take appropriate  steps to  ensure that persons
are not sentenced  to death for  crimes committed before they were  18.  The
Committee  considers that  the determination  of methods  of  execution must
take  into  account  the prohibition  against  causing  avoidable  pain  and
recommends the State party to take all necessary  steps to ensure respect of
article 7 of the Covenant.

297.  The Committee urges the State  party to take all necessary measures to
prevent  any  excessive  use  of  force  by  the  police;  that  rules   and
regulations governing  the use of weapons  by the police and security forces
be in full conformity  with the United Nations  Basic Principles on  the Use
of Force and Firearms by Law  Enforcement Officials; that any  violations of
these rules be systematically investigated in order to  bring those found to
have committed such acts before the courts; and  that those found guilty  be
punished  and the victims be  compensated.  Regulations limiting the sale of
firearms to the public should be extended and strengthened.

 298.   The Committee  recommends that  appropriate measures  be adopted  as
soon as possible to  ensure to excludable aliens the same guarantees of  due
process  as are  available to  other  aliens  and guidelines  be established
which would place limits  on the length  of detention of persons who  cannot
be deported.

299.   The Committee  expresses the  hope that measures be  adopted to bring
conditions of detention of  persons deprived of liberty in federal or  state
prisons  in full conformity  with article 10 of  the Covenant.  Legislative,
prosecutorial and judicial policy in sentencing  must take into account that
overcrowding in  prisons causes  violation of  article 10  of the  Covenant.
Existing legislation  that allows male  officers access  to women's quarters
should  be amended  so as  to provide  at  least that  they will  always  be
accompanied  by women  officers.   Conditions  of  detention in  prisons, in
particular in  maximum security prisons, should  be scrutinized  with a view
to  guaranteeing that  persons deprived  of  their  liberty be  treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person,  and
implementing the United Nations Standard Minimum  Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners  and the Code  of Conduct  for Law  Enforcement Officials therein.
Appropriate measures  should  be  adopted to  provide speedy  and  effective
remedies to  compensate  persons who  have  been  subjected to  unlawful  or
arbitrary arrests as provided in article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.

300.  The Committee recommends that further measures  be taken to amend  any
federal or  state regulation  which allow,  in some  states, non-therapeutic
research to be conducted on minors or mentally-ill patients on the basis  of
surrogate consent.

301.   The Committee recommends  that the current system in  a few states in
the appointment of judges  through elections be reconsidered with a view  to
its replacement by a system of appointment on merit by an independent body.

302.    The  Committee  recommends  that  steps  be  taken  to  ensure  that
previously  recognized   aboriginal  Native   American   rights  cannot   be
extinguished.  The Committee urges the Government to ensure that there is  a
full judicial review in respect of  determinations of federal recognition of
tribes.   The Self-Governance Demonstration  Project and similar  programmes
should be strengthened to  continue to fight the  high incidence of poverty,
sickness and alcoholism among Native Americans.

303.   The  Committee expresses  the  hope  that, when  determining  whether
currently permitted affirmative  action programmes for minorities and  women
should be withdrawn,  the obligation to provide Covenant's rights in fact as
well as in law be borne in mind.

304.   The Committee recommends  that measures  be taken  to ensure  greater
public  awareness of  the provisions  of  the Covenant  and that  the  legal
profession as well  as judicial  and administrative  authorities at  federal

and state levels be  made familiar with these  provisions in order to ensure
their effective application.


K.  Ukraine

305.    The Committee  considered  the  fourth  periodic  report of  Ukraine
(CCPR/C/95/Add.2) at its  1418th to 1420th  meetings (see  CCPR/C/SR.1418 to
1420), held on  11 and  12 July  1995 and  adopted 20/  the following  final
comments:


 1.  Introduction

306.   The  Committee welcomes  the fourth  periodic report  of Ukraine  and
views with  satisfaction  the  cooperative  attitude of  the  delegation  in
engaging  in a  frank  and constructive  dialogue with  the Committee.   The
Committee appreciates the fact that the  report did not conceal difficulties
encountered  by the  State party  in  implementing  the Covenant.   However,
those  difficulties  were   described  in  very   broad  terms  and  without
describing  the  steps  envisaged  by  the  State  party  to  overcome them.
Furthermore,  the  report  did not  provide  sufficient  information  on the
implementation  of the  Covenant in  practice.   The additional  information
provided in the oral replies given by the  delegation to the questions posed
and  comments raised by the Committee members have  enabled the Committee to
gain a clearer picture  of the overall situation in the country,  especially
with  regard  to  Ukraine's approach  to  compliance  with  the  obligations
undertaken under the Covenant.


                    2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the
                        application of the Covenant

307.   The Committee notes that it  is necessary to overcome vestiges of the
totalitarian past and that much remains  to be done to strengthen democratic
institutions and  respect for  the rule  of law.   In  this connection,  the
Committee  notes that  the Government's  efforts in restructuring  the legal
system and  endeavours to better implement  the Covenant  have been hampered
by  lacunae in the national legislation as well as by a continuing resort to
a large number  of outdated -  albeit still in  force - laws  of the  former
regime,  many of  them incompatible  with  corresponding provisions  of  the
Covenant.    The  Committee also  notes  that  extremist and  discriminatory
attitudes  are emerging in  the country  that are not conducive  to the full
promotion and  protection  of human  rights.   In addition,  this period  of
transition to a market-oriented economy has  been marked by severe  economic
and social difficulties.


3.  Positive aspects

308.   The Committee expresses  its satisfaction  as to the  fundamental and
positive changes which have recently taken place  in Ukraine.  These changes
will create a better political, constitutional  and legal framework for  the
full implementation of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.

309.  The Committee welcomes the fact that,  through the adoption of the Act
on  the  Effect  of  International  Agreements  on  Ukrainian  Territory  in
December  1991  and  of  the  Act  on  Ukraine's  International  Treaties in
December  1993,   international  treaties  ratified   by  Ukraine  are   now
automatically  part of the domestic legal order.  The recognition by Ukraine
of the  competence of the Committee  to receive  and consider communications
from  individuals  under the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Covenant and  its
willingness to  adopt appropriate  procedures to  implement the  Committee's
views   without  delay  is   of  particular  importance  for  the  effective
implementation of the Covenant.

310.   The Committee  welcomes the  many other recent  legal developments in
Ukraine  and the present  progress in  the transition  towards democracy and
pluralism.  In general, the Committee is encouraged  by the adoption of  the
Act  on  Provisional  Detention  in  June  1993 and  of  the  Decree  of the
Ukrainian  Cabinet on  Programmes for  Bringing  up  to World  Standards the
Conditions of Detention  in January 1994, which take into account the United
Nations  Standard  Minimum  Rules  for  the  Treatment  of  Prisoners.   The
Committee  also welcomes the  adoption of the  Acts on  the Ukrainian Public
Prosecutor's  Office in  November 1991,  the  Legal Profession  in  December
1992, the Status of  Judges in December 1992, and the Self-Governance of the
Judiciary in February  1994, aimed  at strengthening the independent  status
of the judicial system and improving judicial guarantees for individuals.

311.  The Committee also notes  the adoption by the Government of Ukraine of
the 1991 Act  on Freedom of Conscience  and Religious Organizations, of  the
1993  Acts  on  Information  and  on  Printed  Media,  of the  1993  Act  on
Television and Radio  Broadcasting and of  the Act on Public  Association of
Citizens.   The adoption by  Ukraine of the  Act on Environmental Protection
in 1991,  along  with special  provisions  in  the Penal  Code  establishing
liability  for  the   preparation,  processing  or  selling  of   radiation-
contaminated  foodstuffs  or  other  products  and  their  accession  to the
nuclear non-proliferation treaties are also a welcome development.

312.   The Committee further  notes the adoption  by the  Supreme Council of
Ukraine  of the 1991 Declaration of Rights of  the Nationalities of Ukraine,
which was given legal force through the Act on National Minorities in 1992.

313.  The Committee  takes note with appreciation of the confirmation by the
delegation that  victims of  past human  rights violations  are entitled  to
compensation.  It further welcomes the  efforts initiated by the  Government
of Ukraine  to encourage and facilitate  the return  of minorities displaced
by  the Soviet  regime and  especially  the resettlement  in Crimea  of  the
Crimean Tartars.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

314.   The Committee is concerned by the continuing applicability in Ukraine
of a Constitution which does not  provide guarantees and recourse procedures
in  full conformity with  the Covenant.   Furthermore, it has  not been made
sufficiently clear  during the  consideration of the  report whether,  under
the  law and in the  practice of the courts  and administrative authorities,
provisions  of the Covenant  are systematically  applied in  precedence to a
conflicting provision to domestic law.

315.     The  Committee  expresses  its   concern  about   actual  cases  of
discrimination  against  women and,  in  general,  the  persistence  - in  a
climate  of economic  and social  difficulties  -  of gender  disparities in
practice  with   regard  to  such  issues   as  equal   pay,  the  equitable
participation  of  women  in  the  conduct  of public  affairs  and  in  the
economic, social and cultural life of the country.  The State party has  not
yet  adopted effective measures  to overcome  attitudes based on traditional
roles which  hinder  equality  between  men  and  women.  Additionally,  the
Committee regrets the high  level of family violence within the country  and
recalls that the Covenant requires States  parties to implement measures  of
protection.

316.  The Committee  expresses its deep  concern about the current trend  in
Ukraine to  impose and carry  out an increasing  number of death  sentences,
and about  the inhumane circumstances in  which those  sentences are carried
out.   It recalls that under article  6 of the Covenant a  sentence of death
may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.

317.   The Committee is concerned that the guarantees  contained in articles
7,  9,  10 and  14  of  the  Covenant  are not  fully  complied  with.    In
particular,  it is  concerned  that  torture  and ill-treatment  of  persons

committed by members of  the police and other security forces continue to be
reported, particularly to the Public Prosecutor's  Office.  In this  regard,
it is  concerned  that the  right to  personal  security  may be  restricted
without  any involvement  of  a judicial  body.  The  Procurator's functions
during  the investigation  process as  well as throughout  the trial  do not
ensure the  minimum  requirements  contained in  articles 9  and  14 of  the
Covenant.  Furthermore, cases  of administrative detention, in particular of
vagrants, denial of  access of detainees to  legal counsel and  long periods
of pre-trial detention are matters of great concern.

318.   The  Committee  is also  concerned at  the  conditions in  places  of
detention, whether  in prisons or  curative labour  establishments, which do
not  comply  with  article  10  of   the  Covenant  or  other  international
standards.   Prison  overcrowding is  a further  matter  of  concern to  the
Committee.

319.    The  Committee  expresses  concern  that  the  independence  of  the
judiciary has  not yet been  ensured.  In  this connection,  it regrets that
the Constitutional Court, which  is to be  established under the Act on  the
Constitutional Court  of June 1992, has not yet been set  up.  The Committee
is  further concerned  by the  very  long delays  in the  administration  of
justice, which  are not in conformity with the requirements of both articles
9 and 14 of the Covenant, and notes in that regard that the judicial  system
in Ukraine cannot be efficient until there is  a sufficient number of  well-
trained  and  qualified  judges  and  lawyers.     The  absence  of  special
provisions for juvenile offenders is also a matter of concern.

320.  The  Committee is further disturbed by continuing obstacles to freedom
of  movement in  Ukraine and  in  particular by  the legal  provisions which
allow  for the  rejection of  passport  applications  from holders  of State
secrets.  The requirement  of exit visas and the persistence of the internal
passport are unacceptable and incompatible with article 12 of the Covenant.

321.  The Committee  expresses its concern that,  although Ukraine adopted a
domestic refugee law in December 1993,  currently no concrete measures  have
been taken to implement  this law, or to  establish a refugee  determination
procedure for asylum-seekers in Ukraine.

322.  The  Committee expresses concern  arising from the information  in the
report,  corroborated by  cases brought  to  its  attention, that  there are
incidents and  situations which may be  conducive to  acts of discrimination
on  ethnic,   gender,  religious,  linguistic  or  property  grounds.    The
Committee regrets  that appropriate  steps have not  yet been  taken by  the
authorities  to resolve those  difficulties and,  in particular,  to prevent
and  suppress  the advocacy  of  national,  racial  or  religious hatred  in
conformity  with the  requirements of  article  20  of the  Covenant.   This
situation is  particularly  alarming  in that  it may  undermine  harmonious
relations with minorities.   In that regard, the Committee regrets that  the
definition  of  minorities  under  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of the
Nationalities  of Ukraine  does  not conform  fully with  article 27  of the
Covenant,  which  grants  protection to  persons  belonging  to all  ethnic,
religious  or linguistic  minorities, and  not  only  to those  belonging to
"national" minorities.    Lastly,  the  Committee  notes  with  regret  that
measures  have  not   yet  been  taken  to  grant  automatically   Ukrainian
citizenship to Crimean Tartars who have returned to Crimea.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

323.   The  Committee recommends  that the  constitutional reform  presently
under way be  accelerated in order to ensure the adoption and implementation
of the  new Constitution and  that the text  of the Covenant  be taken  into
account  in  that regard.    In  drafting  new  legislation affecting  human
rights,  attention  should systematically  be paid  to the  establishment of
effective guarantees for  the safeguard of civil  and political rights.   In
that regard, the authorities may avail  themselves of the advisory  services

and  technical cooperation programmes developed by the United Nations Centre
for Human Rights.

 324.   The Committee  urges the  Government to set up  an independent body,
such as a human  rights ombudsman, to monitor the implementation of the  law
in  conformity   with  the  obligations   under  the  various  human  rights
instruments to  which Ukraine  is  a  party, and  to receive  complaints  by
individuals.

325.   The  Committee recommends  that the  State party  review and  include
information  in its next  periodic report  on the  procedures established to
ensure  compliance  with  the  views  and  recommendations  adopted  by  the
Committee under  the first Optional Protocol  to the  Covenant, also bearing
in mind the obligations under article 2 of the Covenant.

326.   With respect  to the  rights of  women, the  Committee believes  that
affirmative measures should  be taken to  strengthen their  participation in
the political,  economic,  and  social  life  of  the country,  as  well  as
positive measures to ensure effective protection against domestic violence.

327.   The Committee  recommends that Ukraine  study measures  to limit  the
categories of  crimes punishable by  death to the most  serious offences, in
conformity with article  6 of the Covenant, with  a view to its  prospective
abolition, and to make when appropriate more extensive  use of the rights of
commutation or pardon.

328.    The Committee  emphasizes  the need  for  greater control  over  the
police.  There should  be intensive  training and educational  programmes in
the field of human rights  aimed at law-enforcement officials.  Steps should
be taken to strengthen recourse procedures for  victims of police abuse  and
detained persons.  Adequate follow-up  to reports  of such  abuse should  be
ensured by thorough investigations and appropriate penal and  administrative
sanctions.    Prison  conditions  should  be brought  into  compliance  with
article 10  of the  Covenant and  with the  United Nations Standard  Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

329.   The Committee recommends  that, in order  to ensure the  independence
and  impartiality  of  the judiciary,  as  well  as the  confidence  of  the
individuals in the proper administration of  justice, further steps be taken
to speed up and  complete the reform process.  Measures for juveniles should
be  appropriate to their  needs and  status.   Furthermore, vigorous efforts
should  also  be made  to  encourage a  culture  of  independence  among the
judiciary  itself and  to  establish  a well-trained  and independent  legal
profession.   A  first priority  should, for  instance, be  to adopt  a  law
containing all the safeguards set forth in the Covenant.

330.  Existing provisions limiting or restricting the  exercise of the right
to freedom of  movement, including  the internal  passport requirements,  as
well  as the legal  provisions relating to holders  of State secrets, should
be reviewed to bring the legislation fully in conformity with article 12  of
the Covenant.

331.   The  Committee recommends  that  Ukraine  undertake to  implement its
domestic refugee law of December 1993 and, in  this connection, that it seek
assistance and  advice from relevant  international organizations, including
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

332.  The Committee  expresses the wish  that vigorous measures be taken  to
give full implementation to article 20 of the Covenant.

333.  The Committee  welcomes the publication  of the report in Ukraine  and
the  Government's intention to disseminate  the record of  the dialogue.  It
emphasizes  that  the text  of the  Covenant  and  the Optional  Protocol be
widely publicized in the  languages spoken in Ukraine, so that the public be
made  fully  aware of  the  rights  enshrined in  the  provisions  of  these
instruments.    It  also  recommends  that  education  in  human  rights and

democracy be  included  in school  and  university  curricula and  that  its
comments be widely disseminated and incorporated  into the curricula of  all
human rights  training programmes  organized  for law-enforcement  officials
and administration officers.


L.  Latvia

334.      The   Committee  considered   the   initial   report   of   Latvia
(CCPR/C/81/Add.1/Rev.1)  at its  1421st,  1422nd and  1425th  meetings  (see
CCPR/C/SR.1421, 1422 and 1425),  held on 12 to 14 July 1995, and adopted 21/
the following final comments:


1.  Introduction

335.  The Committee welcomes the  initial report (CCPR/C/81/Add.1/Rev.1)  of
Latvia and expresses its  appreciation to the State  party for the  open and
constructive  dialogue with the  Committee.   However, it  notes that, while
providing  detailed information  on prevailing  legislation in  Latvia,  the
report does not contain enough information on the  way in which the Covenant
is implemented  in practice. To some extent, the information provided by the
delegation and  the responses  to  the questions  raised by  members of  the
Committee  largely covered  these deficiencies  and provided  the  Committee
with a better insight into the human rights situation in Latvia.


             2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the application
                 of the Covenant

336.  The Committee notes  that it is necessary to overcome vestiges of  the
totalitarian past and that much remains to be done to strengthen  democratic
institutions and respect for the rule of law.   The Government's efforts  in
restructuring the  legal system  and  endeavouring to  better implement  the
Covenant have been hampered by lacunae  in some existing legislation as well
as by continuing resort to a number of  outdated laws which are incompatible
with corresponding provisions of the Covenant.

337.   In  consequence of  large-scale  emigration  from and  immigration to
Latvia in  the past,  there coexisted  in the  country, at  the time  of the
renewal  of  independence,  a  significantly  large  proportion  of  persons
belonging to  various national minorities.  The policy of  the Government to
establish precise  criteria with  regard to  naturalization and  citizenship
has raised  a number of difficulties  which are affecting the application of
the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

338.  The  Committee expresses  its satisfaction as  to the fundamental  and
positive changes  which have taken  place since Latvia re-established itself
as  a  sovereign  State  in  1990.    These  changes will  create  a  better
political, constitutional  and legal framework  for the full  implementation
of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.

339.  Latvia's  accession, soon after its renewal  of independence on 4  May
1990,  to  various  human  rights  international  instruments,  such  as the
Covenant, confirms  the genuine commitment of  the State  party to guarantee
the basic  human rights of all  individuals.  The  recognition by Latvia  of
the competence of the Committee to  receive and consider communications from
individuals  under  the  first  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Covenant  is of
particular importance for the effective implementation of the Covenant.
  340.    The  Committee  notes  with   satisfaction  that  there  has  been
significant progress in securing civil and  political rights in Latvia since
the proclamation of  the renewal  of independence.  Particular  satisfaction
is expressed at the adoption in January 1995  of the National Programme  for

the  Protection  and  Promotion  of  Human  Rights  in  Latvia  and  at  the
establishment of a Human Rights Council in July 1995.

341.  The Committee also notes with satisfaction the elimination of  capital
punishment  as a potential  penalty for several types  of economic crimes as
well as the planned revision  of the Criminal Code which  should lead to the
abolition of the death penalty.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

342.   The  Committee  regrets that  the  Covenant  has  not been  given  an
overriding  status in the  Latvian legal  order and  that the Constitutional
Law on the Rights and Obligations  of a Citizen and a  Person of 10 December
1991 has  no constitutional  status.   Furthermore, the  Constitution of  15
February 1922, which was  restored in 1993,  has not yet been fully  amended
so as  to incorporate all the  rights enshrined in  the various articles  of
the  Covenant.   At the  same time,  the  Committee  notes with  concern the
absence  of   a  body,  such  as   a  Constitutional   Court,  charged  with
determining,  inter  alia,   the  conformity  of   domestic  laws  with  the
provisions of the Covenant and other relevant human rights instruments.
343.   The  Committee  also  notes that  it has  not been  made sufficiently
clear, during  the consideration  of  the report,  how the  human rights  of
resident  non-citizens  are  guaranteed,  in  accordance  with  article   2,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

344.   The Committee notes  with concern that  the Latvian  legal system has
not  yet provided for  effective mechanisms  of investigation  in respect of
violations of  human rights, as  required under  article 2, paragraph  3, of
the Covenant.   In the view  of the  Committee, the  need to make  effective
remedies available to any person whose  rights are violated is  particularly
urgent in  respect of the  obligations embodied  in articles 7, 9  and 10 of
the Covenant.

345.   The  Committee further  regrets  that  the respective  functions  and
mandates of the  State Minister on  Human Rights  and of  the newly  created
Human Rights Council have not been  clearly described during the  discussion
and  believes that there  may be certain overlapping  in their activities as
well as a lack of effective coordination.

346.    While  expressing  satisfaction  at  the  impending  changes  in the
Criminal  Code  which are  expected  to abolish  the  death  penalty  in due
course, the  Committee is concerned  that the death  penalty can be  imposed
for  crimes  which  cannot be  qualified as  the  most serious  crimes under
article 6 of the Covenant.

347.   The Committee is concerned  that the rights  contained in articles  7
and  10 of  the Covenant  are not  fully  respected.   The Committee  is, in
particular, concerned  at allegations of  mistreatment of  detainees and  at
the conditions in places  of detention, which do not comply with article  10
of  the  Covenant or  other  international  standards.    The apparent  non-
separation of  accused persons  from  convicted persons  and juveniles  from
adults  is  a  further  matter  of  concern.  The  Committee  is  especially
concerned that  there do not  seem to be  clear mechanisms  for dealing with
complaints of violence by law enforcement  authorities and of conditions  in
detention centres and prisons.   The Committee also  notes that the judicial
system in Latvia will not be able to  exercise its functions properly  until
there is  a  sufficient number  of  well-trained  and qualified  judges  and
lawyers.
  348.  With regard to articles 9 and  14 of the Covenant, the  Committee is
particularly concerned that  the new Code of Criminal Procedure has not been
enacted.    The  role  of  the  Prosecutor  under  the Law  on  Prosecutor's
Supervision,  enacted  on 19  May 1994,  runs  counter  to the  principle of
equality of  arms in criminal trials  and does not  protect in  a proper way
the right to personal security.

349.   The  Committee is  concerned  that,  as a  result of  the absence  of
domestic  legislation  and procedure  governing  the  treatment  of  asylum-
seekers trying  to enter  or who  have entered  Latvia,  the Government  has
resorted to  an excessive  use of  detention and  removal of  asylum-seekers
from the country.

350.   While  welcoming the  attempts  at  bringing the  naturalization  and
citizenship  legislation   in   conformity   with  regional   human   rights
instruments, the Committee  remains concerned that a significant segment  of
the  population will not  enjoy Latvian  citizenship owing  to the stringent
criteria established  by  the law  and  the  policy deliberately  chosen  to
consider  each case  on  an  individual basis  and pursuant  to  a timetable
calculated to delay the  naturalization process for many years.  In the view
of  the Committee,  the legislation  still  contains criteria  of  exclusion
which give room to  discrimination under articles 2  and 26 of  the Covenant
and raises difficulties under articles 13 and 17 of the Covenant.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

351. The Committee recommends that a review of the existing legal  framework
for the  protection of  human rights  in the  State party  be undertaken  in
order  to  clarify  the  status  of  international  human  rights  treaties,
particularly  the  Covenant, in  the  domestic  legal  hierarchy.   In  this
regard, the  Committee emphasizes the importance  of giving  the Covenant an
overriding  status  in the  national  legal  order.    Regarding the  actual
application  of the  Covenant, the  Committee  requests  the State  party to
indicate in  its second  periodic report  any possible  instances where  the
Covenant was  directly invoked  before  the  courts, as  well as  about  the
results of any such proceedings.

352.   The  Committee recommends  that the  State party  review and  include
information  in its next  periodic report  on the  procedures established to
ensure  compliance  with  the  views  and  recommendations  adopted  by  the
Committee under  the first Optional Protocol  to the  Covenant, also bearing
in mind the obligations under article 2 of the Covenant.

353.  The Committee urges that the State party take appropriate measures  to
provide effective and efficient remedies for  all persons whose rights under
the Covenant  have been violated.   In  that regard, the  Committee requests
the State  party to  ensure due  coordination between  existing and  planned
institutions  aiming  at  protecting  human  rights.    The  Committee  also
recommends that measures be taken to ensure greater public awareness of  the
remedies  available to individuals,  including the  provisions of  the first
Optional Protocol.

354.  The Committee would welcome information on the situation of women,  to
be provided in  the second periodic report,  and recommends the State  party
to  take  appropriate steps  to  educate the  population  of Latvia  on  the
equality of men and women.

355.  While strongly endorsing the steps  envisaged towards the abolition of
the death penalty in Latvia, the Committee recommends that a firm policy  be
adopted aiming at commuting, during the  interim period, all death sentences
to life imprisonment.

 356.   The Committee  recommends that  the State  party take  any necessary
measures  to ensure that the conditions of detention  of persons deprived of
their liberty  comply fully with article 10 of the Covenant,  as well as the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

357.   The  Committee  emphasizes  the  need for  greater  control over  the
police, particularly  in the context of  the recent  authoritarian past from
which  Latvian  society  is  emerging.   Intensive  training  and  education
programmes in  the field of  human rights for  law enforcement officials  as
well as  officials  of the  correctional  service  are recommended.    Steps

should be  taken to institute effective  recourse procedures  for victims of
police  abuse and detained  persons. Adequate  publicity should  be given to
pronounced administrative and penal sanctions.

358.   The  Committee recommends that,  in order to  ensure the independence
and  impartiality  of  the  judiciary,  as well  as  the  confidence of  the
individuals in the proper administration of  justice, further steps be taken
to  speed up  and complete  the reform  process.   Further  vigorous efforts
should  also  be made  to  encourage a  culture  of  independence  among the
judiciary itself.  

359.  The Committee recommends that the Government  of Latvia take steps  to
adopt  domestic legislation governing the treatment of  refugees and asylum-
seekers  in compliance with the Covenant and international  refugee law.  In
this regard, the Committee further recommends  that the Government of Latvia
seek  assistance from  relevant international  organizations, including  the
Office of the  United Nations High  Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).   The
Committee also recommends  that the Latvian Government consider acceding  to
the  1951  Convention relating  to  the  Status  of  Refugees  and its  1967
Protocol.

360.   The  Committee recommends  that the  State party  take all  necessary
measures to  guarantee that the  citizenship and naturalization  legislation
facilitate the full integration of all  permanent residents of Latvia,  with
a  view  to  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rights  guaranteed  under  the
Covenant, in particular with articles 2 and 26.

361.  The  Committee recommends that the Covenant, the Optional Protocol and
the Committee's comments  be widely  disseminated among the Latvian  public.
Additionally,  the  Committee recommends  that  human  rights  education  be
provided in school at all levels and comprehensive human  rights training be
provided  to judges,  lawyers, law  enforcement officers  and other  persons
involved in  the administration of  justice.  In this  regard, the Committee
suggests that  the State  party avail  itself of  the technical  cooperation
services  of  the United  Nations  Centre  for  Human Rights,  and  seek the
cooperation of the relevant non-governmental organizations.


M.  Russian Federation

362.   The Committee  considered the fourth  periodic report  of the Russian
Federation  (CCPR/C/84/Add.2)  at   its  1426th  to  1429th  meetings   (see
CCPR/C/SR.1426 to 1429),  held on 17 and 18  July 1995, and  adopted 22/ the
following comments:


1.  Introduction
363.   The  Committee welcomes  the fourth  periodic report  of the  Russian
Federation and  views with satisfaction  its dialogue  with the  delegation,
particularly the  delegation's willingness to engage  in a frank  discussion
with the Committee and the detail in which  its written and additional  oral
questions were addressed.  The Committee regrets  that, while the report was
mainly   drafted  on  the   basis  of   legal  measures   enacted  or  under
consideration, insufficient information  was provided  regarding the  actual
enjoyment of some of  the rights guaranteed in  the Covenant.  The Committee
appreciates  that  this  situation  was  partly  remedied through  the  oral
responses  to  the Committee's  questions,  which  allowed  it  to obtain  a
clearer view of the overall situation in the State party.


              2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the application
                  of the Covenant

364.   The Committee notes that it is necessary  to overcome vestiges of the
totalitarian past and that much remains to be done to strengthen  democratic
institutions  and respect for  the rule  of law.   This has  created a legal

vacuum  in  certain  areas,  in  which  the  principles  set  forth  in  the
Constitution  are not  implemented by  corresponding laws  and  regulations.
The Committee notes that  the enactment of new  laws is being  undertaken by
the Government  but  their consideration  by  two  Chambers of  the  Federal
Assembly prior to promulgation is generally a slow process.

365.   The  Committee is  aware  of economic  difficulties facing  the State
party, which inevitably affect the application of the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

366.  The  Committee expresses its  satisfaction as  to the fundamental  and
positive changes which have recently taken  place in the Russian Federation.
These  changes  will  create a  better political,  constitutional  and legal
framework  for  the full  implementation  of  the  rights  enshrined in  the
Covenant.

367.   The  Committee welcomes  the new  Constitution  of 1993,  which gives
legal  recognition  to the  concept  of human  rights  and  freedoms  of the
individual.   The Committee  considers that  chapter 2  of the Constitution,
which enumerates  the rights and liberties  of the  individuals, conforms to
many of the basic rights provided under the Covenant.

368.  The Committee  welcomes the provisions of  article 15, paragraph 4, of
the  Constitution, which, together  with the  limiting provision  of article
125, paragraph  6, establishes  that international  treaties, including  the
Covenant,  are part  of the  Russian legal  system and superior  to domestic
law.  It  further welcomes the inclusion of  article 17, paragraph 1,  which
stipulates  that the  basic rights  and  liberties,  in conformity  with the
commonly  recognized principles  and norms  of international  law,  shall be
recognized  and guaranteed by  the State  party under  the Constitution, the
recognition  in the  Constitution of  the  right  to apply  to international
bodies  when  domestic remedies  are  exhausted  and  the  written and  oral
affirmations that the provisions of the  Covenant are directly invocable  in
domestic courts of law.

369.   In  this  context, the  Committee also  welcomes  the fact  that  the
Russian Federation is party to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

370.  The Committee welcomes the progress  made towards democracy since  the
consideration  of  the  third  periodic  report.     It  also  welcomes  the
promulgation of  a number of legal  instruments aimed  at guaranteeing human
rights for all  persons in the territory of  the State party, including  the
new Civil Code and Criminal  Code.  It further welcomes  the draft law aimed
at a comprehensive reform  of the judicial process  and the Code of Criminal
Procedures currently in the drafting stage  and notes with appreciation that
the right  of all  persons  whose rights  are  violated  to have  access  to
judicial recourse has been legally established.

371.   The Committee  welcomes the  establishment of  several bodies charged
with  the protection  of human  rights, including  the  Office of  the Human
Rights Commissioner under the State Duma  and the Presidential Human  Rights
Commission, as well as the newly established Commission for Human Rights  of
the Commonwealth of Independent States. 

372.  The Committee welcomes the  Government's assurances that a  systematic
review of persons placed  in psychiatric facilities  under previous  regimes
will be carried out  and trusts  that all those found  to be placed in  such
facilities without due cause will be released.

373.   The Committee  welcomes the  special legislation  enacted to  provide
compensation to victims of the events of October 1993.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

374.   The  Committee is  concerned  that  the profound  legislative changes
taking place  within the  State party have  not been matched  by the  actual
protection of  human rights at the  implementation level.   Specifically, it
regrets that many of the rights established under the Constitution have  not
been  put  into  effect  through  the  enactment  of  implementing  laws and
regulations and that the relationship of  the various bodies entrusted  with
the  protection of  human  rights  has not  been clearly  defined.   In this
connection, it  regrets  that  the  responsibilities  of  the  Human  Rights
Commissioner, although  understood to be broad in nature and  to include the
power to investigate complaints of human  rights violations, to bring  cases
to the  Constitutional Court  whenever Constitutional  rights are  infringed
and to take legislative initiatives, are  not specified in the  Constitution
and  have  not yet  been  legally  defined  in subsequent  legislation.   In
addition, the  responsibilities of the Procurator's  Office with respect  to
the protection  of human rights  would appear to  coincide in many  respects
with those of the  Human Rights Commissioner.   In relation to these bodies,
it  is not  clear why  the  Presidential  Human Rights  Commission operating
directly under the President, who is  personally responsible as guarantor of
human  rights under the  Constitution, is empowered only with recommendatory
functions,  or what  mechanisms are  in  place  to ensure  that presidential
decrees conform with the Covenant.

375.   The Committee  is concerned  that, despite guarantees  of equality in
the Constitution and in labour legislation,  the de facto situation of women
is  one of continuing inequality.  The failure  to ensure equal remuneration
for work of comparable worth and the persistence of attitudes and  practices
which impose child-rearing  and other domestic responsibilities entirely  on
women contribute to this inequality and  to discrimination in the workplace.
The  Committee is  especially alarmed  at  the extent  of rape  and domestic
violence  and the inadequate  efforts made by  the authorities  to deal with
this problem.   It  is also  alarmed at  the high incidence  of unemployment
among women.

376.  Although the  Committee notes that the  draft Criminal Code before the
Federal Assembly would  reduce the number of crimes  that may result in  the
imposition of the death penalty, it is still concerned at the wide range  of
crimes still  punishable by  such penalty.   Moreover,  the Committee  notes
that   while  the   number  of   persons  actually   executed  has  declined
dramatically  since  1993, sentencing  continues,  which  has resulted  in a
large and growing number of persons on death row.

 377.   The Committee expresses deep concern over the  practice of pre-trial
detention and over the fact that temporary detention has been extended  from
10 to  30 days  in certain  cases.   It is  concerned by  the extent of  the
Procurator's  competence  to  decide  on  matters  relating  to  arrest   or
detention which  cannot  be challenged  by  the  person concerned  before  a
court.   Under article  9, paragraph 3,  of the Covenant,  the detention  of
persons before  they are granted a trial should not be the norm and, when it
occurs,  persons so detained  should be granted a  trial within a reasonable
time or be  released.  The  Committee is concerned that  pre-trial detention
is  practised, not only in cases of serious criminal  charges but more so on
misdemeanour charges and frequently  for unreasonably long  periods of time,
and that no effective mechanism exists for monitoring such detention.

378.   The Committee  further expresses  grave concern  over the  lack of  a
monitoring mechanism for penitentiary facilities to ensure humane  treatment
of  detainees and  prisoners.    In  this  regard,  it deplores  the  cruel,
inhumane and  degrading conditions that  persist in  many detention  centres
and penitentiary  facilities and  condemns the  use of  food deprivation  as
punishment. 

379.   The Committee expresses  concern about  the lack of  independence and
efficiency  of the judiciary  and the long  delays in  the administration of
justice, which do not  conform with the requirements  of both articles 9 and
14  of the  Covenant, and notes in  that regard that the  judicial system in
the Russian  Federation cannot be effective  to ensure  protection of rights

until there is a  sufficient number of well-trained and qualified judges and
lawyers.

380.   The Committee is  concerned that actions  may continue which  violate
the  right  to  protection from  unlawful  or  arbitrary  interference  with
privacy,  family,  home  or  correspondence.    It  is  concerned  that  the
mechanisms  to intrude  into  private telephone  communication  continue  to
exist,  without  a  clear  legislation  setting   out  the  conditions   for
legitimate interferences with  privacy and providing for safeguards  against
unlawful interferences.

381.  Although federal  law has provided for  the abolition of  the propiska
(residence permit) system, the Committee is  concerned that at regional  and
local levels, the system  is still applied in  practice, thus violating  not
only the Constitution, but  also article 12 of  the Covenant.   It expresses
further  concern that the  most important legal restriction  on the right to
leave the country is still cast  in terms of a State  secret.  This does not
correspond  with  the  requirements  of  article  12,  paragraph  3,  of the
Covenant and the Committee deplores, in that  regard, the resistance to date
in bringing the legislation in conformity with the Covenant.   The Committee
further  regrets  that  all  individuals  not  having  yet  performed  their
national service  are excluded  in principle  from enjoying  their right  to
leave the country.

382.   The Committee is concerned  that conscientious  objection to military
service, although recognized under article 59 of the Constitution, is not  a
practical option under  Russian law and  takes note  in this  regard of  the
draft law on  alternative service before the Federal Assembly.  It expresses
its concern  at the possibility  that such  alternative service may  be made
punitive, either in nature or in length of  service.  The Committee is  also
seriously  concerned  at  the allegations  of  widespread  cruelty  and ill-
treatment of young conscript-soldiers.

383.  The Committee  is concerned at  reports of growing number of  homeless
and abandoned children in need of measures of protection.

384.   The Committee expresses  its concern that  the limited definition  of
the term "national  minorities", which serves as the  basis for much of  the
legislation in  the State party concerning  the rights  of persons belonging
to minorities,  does not  give  protection  to all  persons referred  to  in
article 27 of  the Covenant. It is also  concerned at reports of  harassment
shown  towards  persons  belonging  to  minority groups  from  the  Caucasus
region, in the form of searches, beatings, arrests and deportation.

385.    The  Committee  deeply  regrets  the  lack  of  familiarity  of  law
enforcement and  prison officers  with the  guarantees provided  in the  new
Constitution  and  with  international  human  rights  standards  under  the
Covenant.

386.  The  Committee expresses concern over the jurisdiction of the military
courts in civil cases.  Persons detained by members  of the armed forces are
said to be able to raise complaints  before the Military Procurator's Office
in charge of the detention centre  where they were held.   This would appear
to create a situation in which the army is entrusted with  the judgement and
sentencing  of the crimes  committed by  its own members.   The Committee is
concerned  that  such   a  situation  may  cause  miscarriages  of  justice,
particularly  in  the light  of  the  Government's acknowledgement  that the
army,  even at the highest levels, is not  familiar with international human
rights law, including the Covenant.

387.  The Committee  expresses deep concern  at the high number of  refugees
following the  events that  occurred in  North Ossetia  in 1992  and at  the
difficult conditions  faced by these displaced  persons in the  neighbouring
Republic of  Ingushetia, as well as at the numerous  incidents that occurred
during their attempts to return to their homeland.

388.  With reference  to the specific  situation in Chechnya, the  Committee
expresses concern  that  article 4  of  the  Covenant, which  specifies  the
provisions  that are non-derogable  even in  times of  public emergency, has
not  been complied with.   It  maintains that this article  is applicable to
the situation in  Chechnya, where the use of  weapons by combatants has  led
to the loss of life  and deprivation of freedom of large numbers of persons,
regardless of  the fact  that a  state of  emergency has  not been  formally
declared. 

389.   The  Committee deplores  the  excessive  and disproportionate  use of
force  by Russian forces  in Chechnya,  indicating grave  violation of human
rights.  It further deplores the fact that no  one has been made responsible
for  the inhumane treatment  of prisoners  and other  detained persons, that
investigations  on charges  of human  rights violations  by Russian  forces,
including killing of civilians, have so  far been inadequate, that  civilian
installations such  as schools  and hospitals  were destroyed  by government
forces, and that a  large number of civilians have been killed or  displaced
as a consequence of the destruction of their homes.

390.    The Committee  expresses  deep concern  about  the  large  number of
reported  cases  of torture,  ill  treatment  of  the  person and  arbitrary
detention  in  "reception   centres"  or  "filtration  camps",  which   were
originally established  to determine the  identities of captured  combatants
but are reported  to accommodate large  numbers of  civilians as  well.   It
deplores  the maltreatment of  detainees in  these centres  and is concerned
that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has not been  given
access to all such camps.

391.  The  Committee is concerned that, as  a result of the violent excesses
of recent developments  in Chechnya, the level  of confidence of  the people
in the  reconstruction efforts by the local authorities and  the attempts to
bring relief to human rights violations is extremely low. 


 5.  Suggestions and recommendations

392.   The Committee  recommends that  the relationship  between the various
bodies  charged with the  protection of human rights  be clearly defined and
coordinated and that  the existence and functions  of these bodies be widely
publicized.   The Committee further recommends  that a  mechanism be clearly
established to ensure conformity of all  presidential decrees and laws  with
the  provisions  of  the  Covenant  and  other  international  human  rights
instruments to which the State is party.

393.   The Committee  recommends  that the  State party  review and  include
information  in its next  periodic report  on the  procedures established to
ensure  compliance  with  the  views  and  recommendations  adopted  by  the
Committee under  the first Optional Protocol  to the  Covenant, also bearing
in mind the obligations under article 2 of the Covenant.

394.   The  Committee recommends  that  greater efforts  be made  to collect
information  on the  situation  of  women and  the  effects on  them of  the
structural  political, economic and  social changes  taking place.   On this
basis,  the Government  should initiate  or strengthen  programmes aimed  at
providing  assistance   to  women  in   difficult  circumstances,  including
unemployed women, victims of  domestic violence and victims  of rape, with a
view to ensuring their equality before the law  and the equal protection  of
the law.   In particular, it  should consider  allocating responsibility for
that purpose to an appropriate high-level governmental body.

395.  The  Committee urges the Government to reduce substantially the number
of crimes  for which the death  penalty may be  imposed, in accordance  with
article 6 of the Covenant, with a view to its eventual elimination.

396.   The Committee recommends  that the treatment  of persons deprived  of
their liberty, whether in detention  centres or in  penitentiary facilities,

be effectively  monitored.  In this  connection, it  strongly recommends the
adoption of new rules and regulations that comply fully with articles 7,  9,
10 and 14 of  the Covenant and the United Nations Body of Principles for the
Protection of All  Persons under Any Form  of Detention or Imprisonment  and
that the  texts of all prison  rules and orders  and international norms  on
prison administration be made public and  accessible.  The Committee further
recommends that  priority be  given to  the establishment  of the  Visitors'
Committee for  the  correctional institutions  of  the  Federation and  that
legislation  on the  judicial review  of  arrest  and detention  be urgently
passed  in compliance  with article  9, paragraph  3, of  the Covenant,  and
article 22,  paragraph 2, of the  Constitution. It urges that the Government
should refrain from placing first-time,  non-violent and petty  offenders in
detention  centres,  and  give  consideration  to  various  other  practical
measures  designed  to  reduce  the  overcrowding  of  pre-trial   detention
centres, particularly  the greater use  of release pending  trial.  It  also
calls  for  an  immediate  end  to  the  practice  of  food  deprivation  as
punishment  in  prisons  and  encourages  the  Government's  initiatives  to
institute alternative forms of punishment.

397.   The  Committee  stresses  the need  for  a prompt  enactment  of  the
legislation  on  the  judiciary  and   urges  that  this  legislation  fully
incorporate the essential guarantees for the independence  of the judiciary,
including  the United Nations  Basic Principles  on the  Independence of the
Judiciary.   The  Committee recommends  that  efforts  be made  to make  the
Covenant  and other  international human  rights  norms  as widely  known as
possible,   particularly   among   the   authorities   invested   with   the
administration  of justice,  law enforcement  and prison  officers but  also
among the general public.   It recommends that  the State party avail itself
of  the technical  cooperation services  of  the  United Nations  Centre for
Human Rights.
  398.   The Committee recommends that the abolition of  the propiska system
be  carried out  all over  the country  without exceptions.   Further  steps
should be  taken to bring the law concerning the right  to leave the country
in  full  line  with  the  State   party's  obligations  under  article  12,
paragraphs  2  and  3,  of  the  Covenant  and,  in  particular,  to  remove
restrictions to knowledge of  State secrets.  The  Committee urges that  all
regional and local authorities  be made to comply with the Federal policy of
abolishing the  propiska system  (i.e. the  system of  "internal passes"  or
"passports").

399.  The  Committee urges that legislation be  passed on the protection  of
privacy, as well  as that strict  and positive  action be  taken to  prevent
violations   of  the  right   to  protection   from  unlawful  or  arbitrary
interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.

400.  The Committee  urges that stringent  measures be adopted to ensure  an
immediate  end to mistreatment and abuse of army  recruits by their officers
and fellow  soldiers.  It  further recommends that  every effort  be made to
ensure that reasonable alternatives  to military service  be made  available
that are not punitive in nature  or in length of service.  It urges that all
charges  brought against  conscientious  objectors to  military  service  be
dropped.

401.   The  Committee recommends  that  national  legislation be  amended to
reflect the broad concept  of minorities contained in  articles 2, 26 and 27
of  the  Covenant, which  prohibit  discrimination  on  the  basis of  race,
colour, sex, opinion  or other status,  and further  protect the rights  not
only of "national minorities" but also  of ethnic, religious and  linguistic
minorities.

402.    The Committee  urges  that  appropriate  and  effective measures  be
adopted to enable all persons displaced as a consequence of the events  that
occurred in North Ossetia in 1992 to return to their homeland.

403.   The  Committee firmly  urges  that the  serious violations  of  human
rights which  occurred and continue  to occur in Chechnya  be vigorously and

immediately  investigated,  the   perpetrators  punished  and   the  victims
compensated.   It urges the Government  to ensure that  all persons held  in
detention are  held for legitimate  cause, for a  reasonable period  of time
and   under  humane  conditions,  in  conformity  with   the  State  party's
obligations under the Covenant.

404.   The Committee,  noting with  appreciation the Government's assurances
that ICRC  will be granted access  to all detention  camps, urges that  such
access  be granted immediately  in the  region of  Chechnya and neighbouring
republics, to allow ICRC  not only to monitor the treatment of detainees but
also to provide supplies and services. 

405.   The  Committee  recommends  that, in  order  to address  the lack  of
confidence  in the  local government  authorities, the  Government  consider
inviting a  greater international  presence, including  from the Centre  for
Human Rights, to assist  the Special Multilateral  Commission established to
investigate recent  events in  Chechnya in  improving  the effectiveness  of
human rights investigations and ensuring fairness  of trials until such time
as the judiciary is  functioning properly.  Such  a measure would make clear
that the  Government is committed to ending human rights  violations both by
submitting itself to international scrutiny  and by drawing on international
expertise toward this end.

406.  The  Committee urges that  adequate measures  be adopted to  alleviate
the conditions of all displaced persons  following the fighting in Chechnya,
including  measures aimed at  facilitating their  return to  their towns and
villages.

 407.  The Committee recommends  that education in human  rights be included
in  school  and  university  curricula  and  that  its  comments  be  widely
disseminated  and incorporated  into  the  curricula  of  all  human  rights
training   programmes    organized   for   law-enforcement   officers    and
administration officials.


N.  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

408.   The  Committee considered  the fourth periodic  report of  the United
Kingdom  of  Great Britain  and  Northern  Ireland (CCPR/C/95/Add.3)  at its
1432nd, 1433rd and 1434th meetings  (see CCPR/C/SR.1432 to 1434),  on 20 and
21 July 1995 and adopted 23/ the following final comments: 24/


1.  Introduction

409.  The Committee  expresses its appreciation  to the State party for  its
detailed and exhaustive  report, which largely complies with the Committee's
guidelines, although regret is expressed  concerning the failure  to address
adequately  issues properly arising  under article 26 of  the Covenant.  The
high competence  of  the  delegation which  presented the  report  is to  be
acknowledged, as is their willingness to  offer thorough and helpful answers
to the wide range  of questions put by  members.  The Committee particularly
appreciates the  frank  acknowledgement by  the  delegation  of those  legal
issues regarding  which the  Government of the  United Kingdom  is still  in
disagreement with  views  of the  Committee  and  for their  willingness  to
engage  in dialogue  with regard  to those  issues.   In this  context,  the
delegation indicated that it would  present written observations setting out
the view of the  Government on the Committee's general comment No. 24(52) on
issues relating to reservations made upon  ratification or accession to  the
Covenant  or  to  the  Optional  Protocols   thereto,  or  in  relation   to
declarations  under article 41 of the Covenant.  25/  It is the  view of the
Committee  that  the  exchange  of  views  with  the  State party  has  been
particularly fruitful and constructive.

410.    The  detailed  information  submitted  by  a  wide  range  of   non-
governmental organizations has not only  greatly assisted the  Committee but

is  also a  tribute  to  the democratic  nature of  United  Kingdom society.
These organizations play an essential role  in furthering the protection  of
human rights in the country.


                   2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the
                       implementation of the Covenant

411.  With regard  to all parts  of the  United Kingdom other than  Northern
Ireland, the Committee finds that there are no significant factors or  other
difficulties  which  should prevent  the  effective  implementation  of  the
Covenant by the Government.   With regard to Northern Ireland, the Committee
notes that, despite the  recent cease-fire and  political negotiations,  the
lack  of  a final  political  solution  and  the  continuation of  emergency
legislation  present  difficulties  affecting  full  implementation  of  the
Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

412.   The Committee warmly  welcomes and encourages  the initiation of  the
peace  process  in  Northern   Ireland.    It   acknowledges  the   historic
significance  of the  recent initiatives  and  of  their importance  for the
promotion  and protection  of human  rights,  including  the right  of self-
determination.

 413.   While the Committee does not agree with some of the positions of the
State  party concerning the  implementation of the Covenant, it acknowledges
the  vibrant climate  of debate  in the  United Kingdom,  which ensures that
issues of human  rights are  comprehensively discussed  and in  which it  is
clear that all points of view are seriously considered.

414.  The Committee  acknowledges the efforts of  the State party  to combat
racial and  ethnic discrimination.  The  programmes to  promote the position
of racial and ethnic minorities in  society are welcomed, including relevant
changes  to the  entry examination  system  for  the police  force, proposed
similar  changes for the  prison service,  the activities  of the Commission
for  Racial Equality, and the  attention paid to race and ethnic sensitivity
training in the training programmes for the judiciary.

415.   Improvements  in the  prison  system  are  welcomed.   The  Committee
welcomes the  improvements  in prison  sanitation conditions  and the  steps
taken  in  addressing  problems   of  overcrowding  within   prisons.    The
Government  is   to  be   commended  for   introducing   a  system   whereby
participation by prisoners in programmes of  education is remunerated in the
same way as engagement  in prison labour.   The statement by the  delegation
that accommodation of prisoners in cells at police  stations has ceased from
June of  this year  is also to  be welcomed.   The appointment of  a Prisons
Ombudsman by the Government in April 1994 is highly appreciated.


4.  Principal subjects of concern

416.  The  Committee notes that the legal system of the  United Kingdom does
not fully ensure that  an effective remedy is provided for all violations of
the rights  contained in the Covenant.   The Committee  is concerned by  the
extent to  which implementation of the  Covenant is impeded  by the combined
effects of  the non-incorporation  of the  Covenant into  domestic law,  the
failure  to accede  to the  first Optional  Protocol and  the absence  of  a
constitutional Bill of Rights.

417.   The Committee also  regrets the decision  of the State  party not  to
withdraw any of its reservations under the Covenant.

418.  It is the  view of the Committee that the powers under the  provisions
permitting infringements of civil liberties, such  as of extended periods of

detention  without charge or  access to  legal advisers,  entry into private
property without  judicial warrant,  imposition of  exclusion orders  within
the United Kingdom, etc., are excessive.  Note  is taken of the Government's
own  admission that  conditions  at  the  Castlereagh  detention  centre  in
Northern Ireland are unacceptable and concern  is therefore expressed at the
Government's  admission that it  has not  decided definitively  to close the
facility.   The Committee is  also disturbed by  reports of the continuation
of the practice of strip searching male and female prisoners in the  context
of the  low security risk that  now exists and in  view of the existence  of
adequate alternative search techniques.

419.   Despite the  recent improvements  in prison conditions  in the United
Kingdom, the Committee is  still disturbed by the high number of suicides of
prisoners, especially among juveniles.

420.  The Committee is concerned  that, notwithstanding the establishment in
the  United  Kingdom   of  mechanisms  for   the  external   supervision  of
investigations of  incidents in which the  police or  military are allegedly
involved,  especially incidents  that result  in  the  death or  wounding of
persons, as the  investigations are still  carried out by  the police,  they
lack sufficient credibility.

 421.    The  Committee  notes  with  concern that  members  of  some ethnic
minorities,   including    Africans   and    Afro-Caribbeans,   are    often
disproportionately subjected  to stop  and search  practices that  may raise
doubts  under   the   non-discriminatory   provisions   of   the   Covenant,
particularly its articles 3 and 26.

422.  The treatment of illegal  immigrants, asylum-seekers and those ordered
to be  deported gives cause  for concern.   The Committee  observes that the
incarceration of persons ordered to be  deported and particularly the length
of their detention  may not  be necessary  in every case  and it is  gravely
concerned at incidences of  the use of excessive  force in the  execution of
deportation  orders.  The  Committee also  notes with  concern that adequate
legal  representation is  not available  for asylum-seekers  effectively  to
challenge administrative decisions.

423.   The Committee is concerned  that the practice  of the  State party in
contracting  out  to the  private  commercial  sector core  State activities
which involve  the use  of force  and the  detention of persons  weakens the
protection of rights  under the Covenant.   The Committee stresses  that the
State party  remains responsible in all  circumstances for  adherence to all
articles of the Covenant.

424.  The Committee notes with concern that  the provisions of the  Criminal
Justice  and  Public Order  Act  of  1994,  which  extended the  legislation
originally applicable in  Northern Ireland, whereby  inferences may be drawn
from the silence of persons accused  of crimes, violates various  provisions
in article 14 of  the Covenant, despite  the range of safeguards built  into
the legislation and the rules enacted thereunder.

425.   The Committee  is concerned at the levels  of support offered for the
protection of cultural and ethnic diversity within the United  Kingdom.  The
Committee  further  notes  with  concern  that  many  persons  belonging  to
minorities frequently  feel that acts of  racial harassment  are not pursued
by the  competent authorities  with sufficient  rigor and  efficiency.   The
Committee also  regrets the lack of  success in the  adequate recruitment of
ethnic minorities into the  police.  It further  believes that much  remains
to be done to effect changes in public attitudes and  to combat and overcome
racism.

426.  The Committee regrets  that corporal punishment may still be permitted
in certain circumstances in independent schools.


5.  Suggestions and recommendations

427.   The Committee  strongly recommends  that the State  party take urgent
steps to ensure that its legal  machinery allows for the full implementation
of the  Covenant.    Accordingly,  it  is  urged  to  examine  the  need  to
incorporate the  Covenant into domestic  law or introduce  a bill of  rights
under which legislative  or executive encroachment on Covenant rights  could
be reviewed by  the courts. It  should also reconsider its  current position
as to accession to the first Optional Protocol.

428.   The State party  is recommended to  review the  reservations which it
has made to the Covenant.

429.   In the context of the elaboration of  a peace settlement for Northern
Ireland, the  Committee recommends that further  concrete steps  be taken so
as  to permit  the  early withdrawal  of  the  derogation  made pursuant  to
article 4 and to dismantle the apparatus of laws infringing civil  liberties
which  were  designed for  periods of  emergency.   It also  recommends that
specific efforts be  made to enhance  in Northern Ireland confidence  in the
administration of justice by resolving outstanding  cases and by putting  in
place transparently  fair procedures  for the  independent investigation  of
complaints.    The   Committee  further  recommends  that  the   Castlereagh
detention centre be closed as a matter of urgency.

430.   Given the  significant decline  in terrorist  violence in the  United
Kingdom since  the cease-fire came into  effect in Northern  Ireland and the
peace process  was initiated,  the Committee  urges the  Government to  keep
under the  closest review whether a  situation of  "public emergency" within
the  terms of  article 4,  paragraph 1,  of  the  Covenant still  exists and
whether  it would  be  appropriate for  the United  Kingdom to  withdraw the
notice of  derogation which  it issued on  17 May 1976,  in accordance  with
article 4 of the Covenant.

431.  The State party should ensure that  all those who are involved  in the
detention of prisoners be made fully  aware of the international obligations
on the  State party  concerning the  treatment of  detainees, including  the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

432.  The  Committee recommends that the  Criminal Justice and Public  Order
Act  of 1994 and the  equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland be reviewed
in order to ensure  that the provisions which  allow inferences to  be drawn
from the silence of accused  persons do not compromise the implementation of
various provisions in article 14 of the Covenant.

433.  The  State party is urged to  take further action  to tackle remaining
problems of  racial and  ethnic discrimination and  of social exclusion.   A
concerted campaign  is called for, to  address issues  of research, juvenile
and  adult  education,  recruitment  policies for  the  public  and  private
sectors, legislative  initiative and  law enforcement.   Similarly  forceful
action is  needed to ensure  that women  play an  equal role in  society and
that they enjoy the  full protection of the  law.  Law enforcement officers,
the  judiciary and  the  legal  profession should  receive  information  and
education  to ensure that laws  which protect women  from violence are fully
enforced and that the  interpretation of laws, such as those relating to the
doctrine of provocation, does not unfairly  discriminate against women.  All
public officials should be made fully cognizant of the programmes of  action
and receive  guidance to ensure  that their actions always  serve to support
and promote the stated aims.

434.   The  Committee recommends  that corporal  punishment  administered to
privately funded pupils in independent schools be abolished.

435.  The Committee  recommends that the State  party give wide publicity to
the  Covenant, to  its report  and the  reporting procedure.   It recommends
that these  comments and information about  the dialogue  with the Committee
be  distributed  to interested  non-governmental groups  and  the public  at
large.

O.  Sri Lanka

436.   The Committee considered  the third  periodic report (CCPR/C/70/Add.6
and HRI/Core/1/Add.52) at its  1438th to 1440th meetings,  held on 24 and 25
July 1995, and adopted 26/ the following final comments:


1.  Introduction

437.  The Committee appreciates the opportunity to resume its dialogue  with
the State party.   It regrets, however, that the  State party report was not
satisfactory in  that  it failed  to  provide  detailed information  on  the
actual  implementation in  practice  of  the  provisions  of  the  Covenant.
Moreover, the Committee, while welcoming the updated additional  information
prepared by the  Government and presented to  the Committee, notes that  the
lateness of  its submission did not  allow for  wide distribution, including
its   availability  in  all   the  working   languages  of   the  Committee.
Notwithstanding this  point, the Committee wishes  to express its  gratitude
to the  delegation for the supplementary  information it  provided orally in
answer  to both  the written  and oral  questions posed  by members  of  the
Committee.


                   2.  Factors and difficulties affecting the
                       implementation of the Covenant

438.   The Committee  recognizes and appreciates the  firm commitment of the
Government to a durable  and peaceful solution to  the conflict in the north
and east of  the country.  In view of the considerable efforts undertaken by
the Government to  initiate and  bring peace  to the  island, the  Committee
deeply  regrets the  breakdown of  the  negotiations  and the  resumption of
armed  conflict.  The  return  of  hostilities  has  given  rise  to serious
violations  of human  rights on  both  sides,  thus adversely  affecting the
application of the Covenant.


3.  Positive aspects

439.    The Committee  welcomes  the  initiatives  being  undertaken by  the
Government  to further  the protection  and promotion  of human  rights.  In
this respect  the Committee notes that  a package  of constitutional reforms
is in the process of preparation.  The  Committee notes that draft proposals
are  currently under  consideration  for  establishing a  new procedure  for
direct petitioning to the  Supreme Court in the case of the infringement  of
fundamental rights and for  broadening the scope of  local standings in such
cases so as  to permit a  non-governmental organization  to file a  petition
before the Supreme Court.

440.    The  Committee  further  welcomes  the  enactment  of  Parliamentary
Commissioner  for Administration  (Amendment)  Act  No. 26  of  1994,  which
provides for more direct public access to the  Ombudsman.  In addition,  the
Committee notes that the final report by  the Committee appointed to inquire
into matters relating to persons detained  under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act and the  Emergency Regulations has recommended the immediate  revocation
of detention  orders relating to  140 persons whom the  Attorney General has
decided not to prosecute.  The appointment of  a Commission to inquire  into
election-related violence is also noted.

441.   The Committee expresses its  satisfaction at  the Government's stated
policy of not implementing death sentences  and that corporal punishment  as
a penalty has been suspended for the last 10 years.

442.  The Committee notes with satisfaction  the important role being played
by  non-governmental  organizations in  Sri  Lanka  in contributing  to  the
reform of  laws protecting  human rights, for  example with  respect to  the
recent  amendment of  regulations under  Section  5  of the  Public Security

Ordinance,  by which members  of the  armed forces and the  police have been
directed to issue "arrest receipts" even  in the case where such information
has not been requested by the interested parties, such as family members.

443.  The Committee welcomes the recent adoption of an Act establishing  the
National  Human  Rights  Commission  of Sri  Lanka.   It  also  welcomes the
establishment of the Human Rights Advisory Group.

444.  The Committee expresses its appreciation at the  efforts undertaken to
include  human rights  education within  the curricula of  secondary schools
and  higher  educational establishments,  and  that  human  rights  training
programmes are being organized for the security forces.
 
4.  Principal subjects of concern

445.  The Committee  considers that the  domestic legal system of Sri  Lanka
contains  neither all  the rights  set forth  in the  Covenant nor  all  the
necessary  safeguards  to  prevent  their  restriction  beyond  the   limits
established  by the Covenant.   It  notes also that the  Government does not
appear  to be  considering the  incorporation  of  all Covenant  rights into
domestic law or the ratification of  the Optional Protocol; individuals  are
thus unable  to invoke  all the rights  conferred under the  Covenant before
national courts or before the Human Rights Committee.

446.   The Committee is  of the  opinion that  the time-limit  of two  years
proposed  in the  draft new  Constitution  for  challenging the  validity of
enacted legislation  with the Constitution is  a matter  of serious concern.
Equally, the Committee expresses its concern  with respect to the provisions
of article 16  (1) of the Constitution, which  permits all existing laws  to
remain  valid  and operative  notwithstanding  any  inconsistency  with  the
Constitution's provisions relating to fundamental rights.

447.   With regard  to the  recent establishment of  various mechanisms  for
protecting  and  promoting  human  rights,  the  Committee  appreciates  the
undertaking of  these  initiatives  but  remains  concerned  as  to  whether
sufficient attention is being given to the coordination  of the work of  the
respective committees, commissions and the Human Rights Task Force so as  to
avoid any  duplication of  efforts and  thus maximize  the effectiveness  of
their work.

448.   The Committee is concerned  that the derogation  of rights under  the
various  emergency laws and regulations  may not be in  full compliance with
the  requirement  of the  provisions  of  article 4,  paragraph  2,  of  the
Covenant.   It is further  concerned that courts  do not have  the power  to
examine the legality of  the declaration of  emergency and of the  different
measures taken  during the  state of  emergency.   The Committee  emphasizes
that  the obligations  assumed by  Sri Lanka  as a  State party  to  various
international  instruments must  be respected  even  in  times of  states of
emergency.

449.   With  reference  to article  6  of  the  Covenant, the  Committee  is
concerned that under Sri  Lankan law, the  death penalty may be imposed  for
crimes  such  as  abetting  suicide,  drug-related  offences,  and   certain
offences against property. Some  of these offences do  not appear to  be the
most serious offences under article 6 of the Covenant.

450.   The Committee is seriously  concerned about  the information received
of cases of loss of life of civilians,  disappearances, torture, and summary
executions and arbitrary detention caused by both parties in conflict.   The
Committee  notes with particular  concern that  an effective  system for the
prevention and punishment of  such violations does not  appear to exist.  In
addition,  concern  is  expressed  that  violations  and  abuses   allegedly
committed by  police officers have not  been investigated  by an independent
body, and that frequently the perpetrators of such violations  have not been
punished.  The Committee notes that this may contribute to an atmosphere  of
impunity among  the perpetrators of  human rights  violations and constitute

an impediment to the  efforts being undertaken to  promote respect for human
rights.

451.  With  respect to the functions  of the three Presidential  Commissions
of Inquiry  into Involuntary Removals and  Disappearances, the Committee  is
concerned that the  Commissions are not mandated  to inquire into such human
rights  violations  allegedly  committed  between  1984  and  1988 nor  into
summary executions.

 452.  The Committee is concerned that the undetermined detention which  may
be  ordered  by  the  Secretary of  the  Ministry  of Defence  violates  the
Covenant, particularly when such detention can  be challenged only one  year
after detention.   In view of  this, the  Committee remains concerned  about
the  effectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy in  respect of those arrested
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. 

453.   The Committee is  concerned that the  rights under  article 10 of the
Covenant  of persons deprived of  their liberty in  prisons and other places
of detention are not  fully respected.  It regrets that conditions in places
of detention other  than prisons are not regulated  by law and that  prisons
and other places  of detention are not  regularly visited by magistrates  or
other independent bodies.

454.   With respect  to the  independence  of the  judiciary, the  Committee
expresses its  concern about the  procedure set forth  under article  107 of
the Constitution read with standing orders made by Parliament.

455.  The low  age of criminal responsibility and the stipulation within the
Penal Code by which a child above 8  years of age and under 12  years of age
can be held to be criminally responsible on  the determination by the  judge
of  the child's maturity of  understanding as to the  nature and consequence
of his or her conduct are matters of profound concern to the Committee.

456.  The provisions  of the Special Presidential Commissions of Inquiry Act
which permit  the acceptance of evidence  otherwise inadmissible  in a court
of  law and  which  stipulate that  any  decision  adopted  by a  Commission
established under  the Act  is final  and conclusive  and may not  be called
into question by  any court and tribunal are  matters of serious concern  to
the Committee  in view of  the fact that  the findings  of these Commissions
can  lead to a  penalty of  civic disability being imposed  by Parliament on
those subject to an investigation.

457.    The  Committee  is  also  concerned  that  Article  15  (2)  of  the
Constitution allows  the right to freedom  of expression to be restricted in
relation to parliamentary privilege, particularly in  view of the fact  that
the  Parliament  (Power  and  Privileges)  Act  as  amended  in  1978  gives
Parliament the  power to  impose penalties for  breaches of this  Act.   The
Committee  is  also   concerned  with   the  proposed   amendments  in   the
Constitution  which seek to restrict the right to freedom of expression, "in
the interest of  the authority of  Parliament", which would be  in violation
of article 19  of the Covenant.   It  is equally  concerned that  government
ownership and control over much of the  electronic media might undermine the
right of everyone  to seek, receive or impart  information and ideas of  all
kinds.

458.   The  Committee notes  that the  workers employed  in the  free  trade
zones, 80  per cent of  whom are women,  are unable, in  practice, to  enjoy
fully the rights set forth in articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

459.   While the Committee  welcomes the proposed changes to legislation for
offences  committed  against  children,   such  as  incest  and  the  sexual
exploitation  of  children, it  is  concerned  about  the  situation of  the
economic and sexual  exploitation of children both  with respect to  the use
of children in domestic service and the prostitution of boys.

460.    The  Committee  notes  that  reforms  are  in  place  to  raise  the

marriageable age for girls  to 18.  However, the current legislation permits
the  marriage  of girls  from  the  age  of 12  and  contains discriminatory
provisions with  regard to property between  men and  women, thus preventing
women  from  fully enjoying  the  rights  protected  under  articles 3,  23,
paragraph 3 and 26 of the Covenant.


 5.  Suggestions and recommendations

461.   The Committee strongly  recommends that the  State party take  urgent
steps to  ensure that  its domestic  laws are  in full  compliance with  the
Covenant.  In this regard, it further recommends  that within the context of
the present  efforts to reform the  Constitution due  consideration be given
to the provisions of the Covenant.

462.   The  Committee recommends that  the State party  consider acceding to
the Optional Protocol.

463.  The Committee  notes the efforts being undertaken by the Government to
establish various mechanisms  to promote and protect human rights, including
with respect to the National Human Rights Commission.   In this regard,  the
Committee would like strongly to recommend  that the proliferation of bodies
with  parallel competences should  be avoided  and that  the coordination of
such mechanisms should be  ensured.  It  also urges the State party  to take
into account that investigation  and prosecution of criminal offences should
be  carried out  by an  independent  body and  that punishment  of  criminal
offences should be carried out by the judiciary.

464.  The Committee recommends that the State party review the provision  of
article  16 of the  Constitution which permits  all existing  laws to remain
valid and  operative notwithstanding  any inconsistency  with constitutional
stipulations relating  to fundamental rights.   It also  recommends that the
two-year  time-limit  for  challenging  the   constitutionality  of  enacted
legislations should be abolished.

465.  The Committee  recommends that the provisions  of the Covenant  should
be fully  respected  in  the  areas where  a  state  of emergency  has  been
proclaimed.  The  Committee   also  urges  the  State  party  vigorously  to
investigate all violations  of human rights - both past and present -through
an  independent  agency,  to  punish  those  guilty  of  such  acts  and  to
compensate the victims.

466.  The Committee  recommends that the  State party ensure that the  death
penalty may only  be imposed for the most  serious of crimes as required  by
article 6 of the  Covenant.   Moreover, in view of  the fact that the  death
penalty has  not been carried out  since 1977, the  Committee wishes further
to  recommend  that  the  State  party  consider  taking  measures  for  the
abolition of the death penalty and the ratification  of or accession to  the
second Optional Protocol.

467.  Noting that the definition of torture  given in the Convention Against
Torture  Act  passed  by  Parliament  on   25  November  1994  is   somewhat
restrictive,  the Committee recommends that  the Act be amended  to bring it
into conformity  with article  7 of the  Covenant, taking  into account  the
Committee's General  Comment No. 20(44).  It further recommends that in view
of  the  statement by  the  Government  that  corporal  punishment has  been
suspended the provisions of the domestic  legislation allowing this form  of
punishment be revoked.

468.   With  regard to  articles 9  and 10  of the  Covenant, the  Committee
recommends that as  a matter of  priority all legal provisions  or executive
orders be reviewed to ensure  their compatibility with the provisions of the
Covenant and their effective implementation in practice.

469.   The Committee  recommends that the  State party  review the  existing
procedure relating to the removal of Supreme Court  judges and judges of the

Courts of  Appeal with a view  to its amendment as  a means  of ensuring the
greater independence of the judiciary.

 470.   The Committee recommends the  amendment of  the Special Presidential
Commissions  of Inquiry Act to  bring it into conformity with the provisions
of articles 14 and 25 of the Covenant.

471.  The Committee recommends that the  present provisions by which freedom
of the  press can be restricted by reason of  parliamentary privilege should
be  removed.   The  State  party should  also  take the  necessary steps  to
prevent control and manipulation of the electronic media by the Government.

472.   With  respect to  the  implementation  of article  22, the  Committee
recommends that the State  party ensure that workers  within the free  trade
zones effectively exercise their right to organize.

473.    The  Committee  recommends  that measures  be  taken  to ensure  the
protection of the child and in this regard  the particular attention of  the
State party is drawn  to the Personal Status Act, which permits the marriage
of a  girl at the age of  12, and its incompatibility with the provisions of
the Covenant.

474.   The  Committee  urges  the State  party  to develop  a  comprehensive
programme to deal with the issues  of child labour, particularly of children
in domestic service, and the sexual exploitation of  children of both sexes.


475.  The Committee strongly recommends  that greater efforts be  undertaken
to ensure  that all  ethnic  groups  are provided  with the  opportunity  to
participate  fully  in  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  and  are  ensured
equitable access to public service.

476.   The Committee  recommends that further  measures be taken  to develop
greater awareness of the  Covenant; in particular, law enforcement officials
and members of  the legal profession should be  made fully cognizant of  the
provisions of the Covenant. 

VII.  GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE


Work on general comments

477.   At  its fifty-second  session, the  Committee began  discussion of  a
draft  general comment that  would address  issues relating  to reservations
made upon  ratification of  or  accession to  the Covenant  or the  Optional
Protocols thereto,  or relating to statements  made under article  41 of the
Covenant.    It considered  that  general  comment  at  its 1368th,  1369th,
1380th, 1381st and 1382nd meetings during  its fifty-second session, on  the
basis  of  a draft  prepared by  its  working group  pursuant to  successive
drafts revised in  the light of  the observations and proposals  put forward
by members during and after  the fifty-first session.  The Committee adopted
the general  comment at  its 1382nd  meeting, held  on 2 November  1994 (see
annex V).

478.   Pursuant  to  the  request of  the Economic  and Social  Council, the
Committee  decided  to  transmit  the  general  comment  addressing   issues
relating  to reservations  made upon  ratification  of  or accession  to the
Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto,  or relating to statements  made
under article 41 of the Covenant, to the Council at its substantive  session
in 1995.

479.   During the  three  sessions  covered by  this report,  the  Committee
considered a draft  general comment on  article 25  of the  Covenant at  its
1384th, 1385th,  1399th, 1414th, 1422nd and 1423rd meetings on  the basis of
successive  drafts  revised by  its  working  groups in  the  light  of  the
observations and proposals of its members.

480.   At  its  fifty-fourth  session, the  Committee  noted that  the  pre-
sessional  working group  had  begun consideration  of the  general comments
already  adopted in  the past,  so as to  determine which of  them should be
updated.

481.  The Committee received comments under article  40, paragraph 5, of the
Covenant, concerning its General Comment  No. 24 (52) on  issues relating to
reservations made upon ratification of or accession  to the Covenant or  the
Optional Protocols thereto, or relating to  statements made under article 41
of  the Covenant.   These  comments, which  were transmitted  by the  United
States of  America  and the  United Kingdom  of Great  Britain and  Northern
Ireland, are contained in annex VI to this report.


VIII.  CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL


482.     Individuals  who  claim   that  any  of   their  rights  under  the
International  Covenant on  Civil and  Political Rights have  been violated,
and who have exhausted all available  domestic remedies, may submit  written
communications to the  Human Rights  Committee for  consideration under  the
Optional Protocol.  Of the 130 States  that have ratified or acceded  to the
Covenant,  84  have  accepted  the  Committee's  competence  to  deal   with
individual complaints  by  becoming parties  to the  Optional Protocol  (see
annex  I, sect.  B).    Since the  Committee's  last report  to the  General
Assembly, seven  States have ratified or  acceded to  the Optional Protocol:
Bosnia and  Herzegovina, Chad,  El Salvador,  Kyrgyzstan, Namibia,  Paraguay
and  the former  Yugoslav Republic  of Macedonia.   No communication  can be
examined by the  Committee if it concerns a State party to the Covenant that
is not also a party to the Optional Protocol.

483.    Consideration  of communications  under  the  Optional  Protocol  is
confidential and  takes place in  closed meetings (art.  5, para.  3, of the
Optional Protocol).  All documents pertaining to  the work  of the Committee
under the Optional Protocol (submissions from  the parties and other working
documents of  the Committee)  are  confidential.   Rules  96  to 99  of  the
Committee's rules  of procedure regulate  the confidentiality of  documents.
The  texts of final decisions  of the Committee, consisting of Views adopted
under article 5,  paragraph 4, of the  Optional Protocol, are, however, made
public.  As regards decisions declaring a  communication inadmissible (which
are also final), the Committee has decided that it will normally make  these
decisions public.


A.  Progress of work

484.   The Committee  started its work  under the Optional  Protocol at  its
second  session, in  1977.   Since  then,  636 communications  concerning 46
States  parties have  been registered  for consideration  by  the Committee,
including  49 placed  before  it during  the period  covered by  the present
report.

485.   The status of the 636 communications registered  for consideration by
the Human Rights Committee so far is as follows:

  (a)   Concluded by  Views under article  5, paragraph 4,  of the  Optional
Protocol:  208;

  (b)  Declared inadmissible:  213;

  (c)  Discontinued or withdrawn:  108;

  (d)  Declared admissible, but not yet concluded:  39;

  (e)  Pending at the pre-admissibility stage:  68.

486.   In addition,  the secretariat  of the  Committee has several  hundred
communications on  file, in respect of  which the authors  have been advised
that further information would be  needed before their  communications could
be registered for consideration  by the Committee.   The authors of a number
of additional  communications have been informed  that their  cases will not
be submitted  to the Committee,  as they fall  clearly outside  the scope of
the Covenant or appear to be frivolous.

487.    Two  volumes  containing  selected  decisions  of  the  Human Rights
Committee under  the Optional  Protocol, from  the second  to the  sixteenth
sessions  and   from  the   seventeenth  to   the  thirty-second   sessions,
respectively, have been published (CCPR/C/OP/1 and 2).

488.   During  the  fifty-second  to fifty-fourth  sessions,  the  Committee
concluded consideration of  15 cases by adopting  Views thereon.  These  are
cases  Nos. 386/1989 (Kone  v. Senegal),  400/1990 (Monaco  de Gallicchio v.
Argentina), 447/1991 (Shalto v. Trinidad and  Tobago), 453/1991 (Coeriel  v.
the  Netherlands),  464/1991  and  482/1991  (Peart  v.  Jamaica),  473/1991
(Barroso  v. Panama),  493/1992 (Griffin v. Spain),  500/1992 (Debreczeny v.
the  Netherlands), 511/1992 (Lansman  et al.  v. Finland),  514/1992 (Fei v.
Colombia), 516/1992 (Simunek et al. v.  the Czech Republic), 518/1992  (Sohn
v. the Republic of  Korea), 539/1993 (Cox v. Canada and 606/1994 (Francis v.
Jamaica).  The texts of the Views in these 15 cases are reproduced in  annex
X.

489.  The  Committee also concluded consideration  of 13 cases by  declaring
them  inadmissible.   These are  cases  Nos.  437/1990 (Colamarco  Patino v.
Panama),  438/1990 (Thompson  v. Panama), 460/1991 (Omar  Simons v. Panama),
494/1992  (Rogers v.  Jamaica),  515/1992 (Holder  v. Trinidad  and Tobago),
525/1992 (Gire v. France), 536/1993  (Perera v. Australia),  541/1993 (Simms
v.  Jamaica), 553/1993 (Bullock v. Trinidad and  Tobago), 575/1994, 576/1994
(Guerra  and Wallen  v. Trinidad  and  Tobago), 578/1994  (De Groot  v.  the
Netherlands) and  583/1994 (van der  Houwen v. the Netherlands).   The texts
of these decisions are reproduced in annex XI. 

490.   During  the period  under  review,  29 communications  were  declared
admissible   for  examination   on   the  merits.      Decisions   declaring
communications admissible  are not made public.   Consideration  of 15 cases
was discontinued.   Procedural decisions were adopted in a number of pending
cases (under article 4 of the Optional Protocol or under rules 86  and 91 of
the Committee's  rules of procedure).   The Committee requested  Secretariat
action in other pending cases.


                      B.  Growth of the Committee's case-load
                          under the Optional Protocol

491.  As the  Committee has already stated  in previous annual  reports, the
increasing number  of States  parties to  the Optional  Protocol and  better
public awareness  of the Committee's work  under the  Optional Protocol have
led  to a  growth  in the  number of  communications  submitted  to it.   In
addition, the  Secretariat took action on  several hundred  cases which, for
one reason  or another, were not registered under the  Optional Protocol and
placed  before  the  Committee.    Furthermore,  follow-up  activities   are
required in  the majority  of the  154 cases  in which  the Committee  found
violations of the Covenant.   This workload means that the Committee can  no
longer examine communications  expeditiously and highlights the urgent  need
to reinforce  the Secretariat staff. In  this connection  the Committee also
notes  that an increasing  number of  communications are  being submitted in
languages  which are not among the working languages of the Secretariat, and
expresses its  concern about  the consequent  delays in  the examination  of
such communications.  The Human Rights  Committee reiterates its request  to
the Secretary-General  to take the necessary  steps to  ensure a substantial
increase in  the number of staff, specialized in the  various legal systems,
assigned to service the Committee, and wishes to record that the work  under
the Optional  Protocol  continues to  suffer  as  a result  of  insufficient

Secretariat resources.


                     C.  Approaches to examining communications
                        under the Optional Protocol

1.  Special Rapporteur on new communications

492.   At its thirty-fifth  session, the  Committee decided  to designate  a
Special  Rapporteur  to process  new communications  as they  were received,
i.e. between  sessions of  the Committee.   Mrs. Rosalyn  Higgins served  as
Special Rapporteur for a period of two years.   She was succeeded as Special
Rapporteur by  Mr. Rajsoomer  Lallah (forty-first  to forty-sixth  sessions)
and by  Ms. Christine Chanet (forty-seventh  to fifty-second  sessions).  At
the Committee's  fifty-third  session, Mr.  Fausto Pocar  was designated  to
succeed Ms. Chanet as  Special Rapporteur.  Since the end of the fifty-first
session,  the Special Rapporteur  has transmitted  38 new  communications to
the  States parties  concerned under  rule  91 of  the Committee's  rules of
procedure, requesting information  or observations relevant to the  question
of admissibility.   In some cases,  the Special  Rapporteurs issued requests
for interim measures  of protection pursuant to  rule 86 of the  Committee's
rules  of   procedure.     Regarding  other   communications,  the   Special
Rapporteurs  recommended  to  the  Committee  that  the  communications   be
declared inadmissible without forwarding them to the State party.


2.  Competence of the Working Group on Communications

493.   At its thirty-sixth  session, the Committee  decided to authorize the
Working Group on Communications to adopt decisions declaring  communications
admissible when all  five members so  agreed.  Failing  such agreement,  the
Working Group would refer the matter to the  Committee.  It could also do so
whenever it  believed that the Committee  itself should  decide the question
of  admissibility.  While  the  Working  Group  could  not  adopt  decisions
declaring  communications inadmissible,  it  might make  recommendations  in
that respect to the  Committee. Pursuant to those  rules, the Working  Group
on  Communications  that met  prior  to  the fifty-second,  fifty-third  and
fifty-fourth  sessions   of  the   Committee   declared  23   communications
admissible.


3.  Joinder of admissibility and merits

494.  At its fifty-fourth session, the Committee decided that it would  join
the consideration  of admissibility and merits  of communications when  both
parties   consented   and   the   Committee   considered   it   appropriate.
Consequently,   at   its  fifty-fourth   session   the   Committee  declared
communication No. 606/1994 (Francis v.  Jamaica) admissible and  adopted its
Views thereon.


D.  Individual opinions

495.  In  its work under  the Optional  Protocol, the  Committee strives  to
arrive  at  its  decisions by  consensus.   However,  pursuant  to rule  94,
paragraph 3, of the  Committee's rules of  procedure, members can add  their
individual  concurring or  dissenting  opinions to  the  Committee's  Views.
Pursuant to  rule  92, paragraph  3,  members  can append  their  individual
opinions   to    the   Committee's   decisions   declaring    communications
inadmissible.

496.    During  the  sessions  covered  by  the  present  report, individual
opinions  were appended  to the  Committee's  Views  in cases  Nos. 453/1991
(Coeriel v. the Netherlands) and 539/1993 (Cox v. Canada).

 E.  Issues considered by the Committee

497.  A  review of the Committee's work under the Optional Protocol from its
second session in  1977 to its fifty-first session  in 1994 can  be found in
the  Committee's annual reports for 1984 to 1994, which, inter alia, contain
summaries  of  the  procedural  and  substantive issues  considered  by  the
Committee and  of the decisions taken.  The full texts  of the Views adopted
by the Committee and of its  decisions declaring communications inadmissible
under  the Optional Protocol  have been  reproduced regularly  in annexes to
the Committee's annual reports.

498.    The  following  summary  reflects  further  developments  on  issues
considered during the period covered by the present report.


1.  Procedural issues

(a)  No claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol

499.   Article 2 of  the Optional  Protocol provides  that "individuals  who
claim  that  any of  their  rights  enumerated in  the  Covenant  have  been
violated and who have exhausted all  available domestic remedies may  submit
a written communication to the Committee for consideration".

500.   Although an author does  not need to  prove the  alleged violation at
the admissibility stage,  he must submit sufficient evidence  substantiating
his  allegation for purposes of admissibility.  A "claim" is, therefore, not
just  an allegation,  but  an allegation  supported by  a certain  amount of
substantiating evidence.  Thus, in  cases where the Committee finds that the
author has failed to substantiate his  claim for purposes of  admissibility,
the Committee has held the communication inadmissible, under rule  90 (b) of
its  rules of  procedure, declaring  that  the author  "has no  claim  under
article 2 of the Optional Protocol".

501.   Cases declared inadmissible, inter  alia, for  lack of substantiation
of  the  claim  or failure  to  advance  a  claim,  are  communications Nos.
460/1991  (Simons v.  Panama), 536/1993  (Perera v. Australia)  and 541/1993
(Simms v. Jamaica).

(b)Competence of the Committee  and incompatibility with  the provisions  of
the Covenant (Optional Protocol, art. 3)

502.  In its work under the Optional  Protocol, the Committee has on several
occasions had  to point out that  it is not an  appeal instance intended  to
review or reverse decisions  of domestic courts and  that it cannot  be used
as a forum for pursuing a complaint on the basis of domestic law.

503.   In case No.  541/1993 (Simms  v. Jamaica),  the author, who  had been
sentenced to death, complained  that his trial was unfair and that the judge
had  misdirected the  jury on  the issue  of identification.   The Committee
decided  that the  communication was  inadmissible  under  article 3  of the
Optional Protocol.  It  found that the  author's claims did not come  within
the  competence of the Committee,  as they related primarily  to the judge's
instructions to the  jury and the evaluation of evidence by the  court.  The
Committee recalled  that it was generally for the appellate courts of States
parties to the Covenant and not for the  Committee to evaluate the facts and
evidence and  to review  specific instructions  to  the jury  by the  judge,
unless it  can be ascertained that  the instructions  were clearly arbitrary
or amounted to a denial of justice.

 504.  The Committee  reached a similar conclusion with regard to cases Nos.
460/1991  (Simons v. Panama),  536/1993 (Perera  v. Australia)  and 553/1993
(Bullock v. Trinidad and Tobago).

505.   Communication No. 583/1994  (van der Houwen  v. the Netherlands)  was
declared inadmissible as incompatible with  the provisions of  the Covenant,

as was part of communication No. 578/1994 (De Groot v. the Netherlands).

(c)The requirement  of exhaustion of  domestic remedies (Optional  Protocol,
art. 5, para. 2 (b))

506.  Pursuant to article  5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the
Committee shall  not consider  any communication  unless it  has ascertained
that  the author has  exhausted all  available domestic  remedies.  However,
the Committee  has already established that  the rule  of exhaustion applies
only  to the extent  that these  remedies are effective and  available.  The
State party is required to give "details of the remedies which it  submitted
that had been  available to the  author in  the circumstances  of his  case,
together with evidence that there would  be a reasonable prospect  that such
remedies would be effective" (case No.  4/1977 (Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay)).
The rule also provides that the Committee is  not precluded from examining a
communication  if it is established  that the application of the remedies in
question is unreasonably prolonged.

507.    Communications   Nos.  437/1990  (Colamarco  v.  Panama),   438/1990
(Thompson  v. Panama),  515/1992 (Holder  v. Trinidad  and Tobago), 525/1993
(Gire v. France) and 575/1994 (Guerra v. Trinidad and Tobago) were  declared
inadmissible  for  failure  to  pursue  available  and  effective   domestic
remedies.

(d)  Inadmissibility ratione temporis

508.   As at previous  sessions, the Committee was faced with communications
based on events that occurred prior to the entry into force  of the Optional
Protocol  for  the State  concerned.    The  criterion  of admissibility  is
whether the  events have had  continued effects  which themselves constitute
violations  of the  Covenant  after the  entry into  force  of  the Optional
Protocol.

509.   In  communication No.  536/1993  (Perera  v. Australia),  the author,
inter alia,  complained that  the police  had used  violence against  him in
1986. Since  the Optional Protocol  entered into force  for Australia  on 25
December  1991,  the  Committee  declared this  part  of  the  communication
inadmissible ratione temporis.

510.   In case  No. 516/1992  (Simunek et  al. v.  the Czech  Republic), the
Committee observed that:

  "the State party's obligations  under the Covenant applied as of the  date
of  its  entry  into  force.   A  different  issue  arose  as  to  when  the
Committee's competence  to consider complaints  about alleged violations  of
the Covenant under the Optional Protocol  was engaged.  In its jurisprudence
under  the Optional Protocol,  the Committee  has consistently  held that it
cannot consider alleged  violations of  the Covenant  which occurred  before
the entry into force  of the Optional  Protocol for the State party,  unless
the  violations complained  of continue  after the  entry into force  of the
Optional Protocol.   A  continuing  violation  is to  be interpreted  as  an
affirmation, after the entry  into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or
by clear implication, of the previous violations of the  State party" (annex
X, sect. K, para. 4.5).

Since  the  authors  alleged  that  the  continuous  application  of  a  law
discriminated  against  them,   the  Committee  declared  the  communication
admissible.
  (e)  Interim measures under rule 86

511.   Under rule  86 of  the Committee's rules of  procedure, the Committee
may,  after  receipt of  a  communication  and  before  adopting its  views,
request  a  State  party  to  take  interim   measures  in  order  to  avoid
irreparable damage  to the victim of the alleged violations.   The Committee
has applied this rule on several occasions, mostly in cases submitted by  or
on behalf  of persons  who have  been sentenced  to death  and are  awaiting

execution, and  who claim that they  were denied a fair  trial.   In view of
the urgency  of the communications, the  Committee has  requested the States
parties concerned not to carry out the death  sentences while the cases  are
under consideration.  Stays of execution  have specifically been granted  in
this connection.  Rule 86 has also been applied in other circumstances,  for
instance in cases of imminent extradition.


2.  Substantive issues

(a)  Right to life (Covenant, art. 6)

512.   Article  6, paragraph 2,  provides that a  "sentence of death  may be
imposed  only for the most serious  of crimes in  accordance with the law in
force at  the time of the  commission of the crime  and not  contrary to the
provisions  of the present Covenant".   Thus, a nexus is established between
the imposition of  a sentence of  death and observance by  State authorities
of  guarantees  under  the  Covenant.    Accordingly,  in  cases  where  the
Committee  found  that the  State  party  had  violated  article  14 of  the
Covenant, in that the author  had been denied a fair  trial and appeal,  the
Committee held that the imposition of the sentence  of death also entailed a
violation of article 6.   In its  Views in  case Nos. 464/1991 and  482/1991
(Garfield and Andrew Peart v. Jamaica) the Committee observed:

  "The Committee  is of  the opinion  that the  imposition of a  sentence of
death upon  conclusion of a trial  in which the  provisions of the  Covenant
have not  been  respected constitutes,  if  no  further appeal  against  the
sentence is possible,  a violation of  article 6 of  the Covenant.   As  the
Committee noted in its general  comment 6(16), the provision that a sentence
of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary  to
the  provisions of  the  Covenant implies  that  'the  procedural guarantees
therein prescribed must be  observed, including the right to a fair  hearing
by  an  independent  tribunal, the  presumption  of  innocence, the  minimum
guarantees  for the  defence,  and  the right  to review  of  conviction and
sentence by a higher tribunal'" (annex X, sect. E, para. 11.8).

513.   Having concluded  that the  final sentence of death  had been imposed
after a trial that  failed to comply fully with the requirements of  article
14, the  Committee found  that the  right protected  by article  6 had  been
violated. 

514.   In  case  No. 539/1993  (Keith  Cox  v.  Canada), the  Committee  had
occasion  to affirm its  earlier decisions  with regard to the  scope of the
requirement under article 6, paragraph 1, to protect the right to life.   In
Mr.  Cox's case,  the Committee  had  to  determine whether  the requirement
under  article 6, paragraph  1, prevented  the State  party from extraditing
the complainant  to the  United States, where he  was to stand trial  on two
murder  charges  and, if  convicted,  could  be sentenced  to  death.    The
Committee observed  that, if Mr. Cox's  extradition from  Canada had exposed
him to a real risk of  a violation of article 6,  paragraph 2, in the United
States,  this would have entailed  a violation by  Canada of its obligations
under  the said provision.   In the  circumstances of  this particular case,
the Committee found that the existence  of such risk had not  been shown and
consequently found no violation of article 6, paragraph 1, by Canada.

 515.  Five members of the  Committee appended dissenting opinions,  arguing
that  Canada had  violated  article 6  in  the  instant  case.   One  member
appended  an individual  opinion arguing  that Mr.  Cox's  extradition would
entail a  violation by Canada of  article 7 of  the Covenant.   Furthermore,
two members  appended individual opinions, agreeing  with the  finding of no
violation, but arguing that the Committee  should have revised its  decision
on  admissibility  and  not  have proceeded  to  the  merits.    As  to  the
Committee's  decision on  admissibility, seven  members appended  dissenting
opinions.

(b)The  right not  to  be subjected  to  torture  or  to cruel,  inhuman  or

degrading treatment (Covenant, art. 7)

516.  Article 7  of the Covenant provides that  no one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

517.  In its jurisprudence regarding claims that  a prolonged stay on  death
row  constitutes cruel, inhuman  and degrading  treatment, the Committee has
consistently held that  the facts  and circumstances  of each  case must  be
examined to see whether an issue under article  7 arises and that  prolonged
judicial proceedings do not  per se constitute that kind of treatment,  even
if  they might  be  a  source of  mental  strain and  tension  for  detained
persons.

518.  In case No. 541/1993 (Simms v. Jamaica), the Committee observed:

  "Although  some national courts  of last  resort have  held that prolonged
detention  on death row for  a period of  five years  or more violates their
constitutions or laws, 27/ the jurisprudence  of this Committee remains that
detention for any specific period  would not be a violation  of article 7 of
the  Covenant  in  the  absence of  some  further  compelling circumstances"
(annex XI, sect. H, para. 6.5).

519.   In  case No.  606/1994 (Francis  v. Jamaica),  the Committee  had  to
determine  whether  the  author's  treatment  during his  nearly  12  years'
detention on  death row  entailed violations  of articles  7 and  10 of  the
Covenant.    After having  reaffirmed  its  established  jurisprudence,  the
Committee found that the delays in this case  were attributable to the State
party and considered:

  "Whereas  the psychological  tension  created by  prolonged  detention  on
death row  may affect persons in different degrees, the  evidence before the
Committee  in this  case, including  the  author's confused  and  incoherent
correspondence  with  the  Committee,  indicates  that  his  mental   health
seriously  deteriorated during  incarceration  on  death row.   Taking  into
consideration the author's  description of the prison conditions,  including
his  allegations about regular  beatings inflicted  upon him  by warders, as
well as the ridicule  and strain to  which he was subjected during  the five
days he spent in  the death cell awaiting execution in February 1988,  which
the State party has not effectively  contested, the Committee concludes that
these  circumstances  reveal a  violation  of  Jamaica's  obligations  under
articles  7 and 10, paragraph 1,  of the Covenant" (annex X,  sect. N, para.
9.2).

(c)Liberty and security of person (Covenant, art. 9)

520.  Article 9 of the Covenant guarantees to everyone  the right to liberty
and security  of person.   Under paragraph 1,  no one shall be  subjected to
arbitrary arrest or  detention.  Paragraph 2  prescribes that anyone who  is
arrested shall be  informed, at the time of  his arrest, of the reasons  for
his arrest  and  shall  be promptly  informed of  any  charges against  him.
Paragraph  3 gives  anyone arrested  or  detained on  a criminal  charge the
right to be brought  promptly before a judge and states that it shall not be
the general  rule that persons awaiting trial shall be  detained in custody.
Paragraph 4  entitles anyone  deprived of  his liberty  to take  proceedings
before a  court, in order to have  the court decide on the lawfulness of his
detention.   Paragraph 5 gives anyone  who has been  the victim of  unlawful
arrest or detention a right to compensation.

521.   In  communication No.  493/1992  (Griffin v.  Spain), the  author,  a
Canadian  citizen who did not  speak Spanish, claimed a violation of article
9,  paragraph  2,  because  there was  no  interpreter present  when  he was
arrested and he  was therefore not informed of  the reasons for his  arrest.
The Committee noted:

"that  the author  was arrested and taken  into custody at 11:30  p.m. on 17
April 1991, after the  police, in the presence  of the author,  had searched

the camper  and discovered  the drugs.   The  police reports further  reveal
that the  police refrained from taking  his statement in  the absence of  an
interpreter, and that the  following morning the drugs  were weighed in  the
presence  of  the  author.    He  was  then  brought  before  the  examining
magistrate and,  with the  use of  an interpreter,  he was  informed of  the
charges against him.  The Committee  observes that, although no  interpreter
was present during the  arrest, it is wholly  unreasonable to argue that the
author  was unaware of  the reasons for  his arrest.   In any  event, he was
promptly informed, in  his own language,  of the charges  held against  him"
(annex X, sect. G, para. 9.2).

The  Committee concluded that  no violation  of article 9,  paragraph 2, had
occurred.

522.  In communication No. 386/1989 (Kone v.  Senegal), the author had  been
arrested on 15 January 1982 and released on 9 May 1986; during this time  no
trial date was set.  The Committee concluded that the author's detention  of
four years and four months  was incompatible with the  provisions of article
9, paragraph 3, that  anyone arrested on a criminal charge shall be entitled
to trial within a reasonable time or release.

523.   In communication  No. 447/1991 (Shalto  v. Trinidad and  Tobago), the
author had been found guilty  of murdering his wife.  However, the Court  of
Appeal, on  23 March  1983, quashed  his conviction  and ordered  a retrial.
The  author remained in  detention until  the retrial,  which started  on 20
January 1987.  The Committee found that the author's detention for a  period
of  almost four years between the  judgement of the  Court of Appeal and the
beginning of the  retrial could not be deemed compatible with the provisions
of article 9, paragraph 3.

(d)Treatment during imprisonment (Covenant, art. 10)

524.   Article  10, paragraph  1, prescribes  that all  persons deprived  of
their  liberty shall  be  treated  with humanity  and with  respect  for the
inherent dignity  of the  human person.   Paragraph 2 of  article 10  states
that  accused persons shall  be segregated  from convicted  persons, save in
exceptional  circumstances,  and that  accused  juvenile  persons  shall  be
separated  from  adults.   The Committee  found a  violation of  article 10,
paragraphs 1 and 2, in case No. 493/1992 (Griffin v. Spain).

(e)Guarantees of a fair trial (Covenant, art. 14)

525.   Article 14,  paragraph 1,  provides that  all persons shall  be equal
before the courts and gives everyone the right to a fair and public  hearing
in the determination of criminal charges against him.

526.   In case No. 514/1992 (Fei v. Colombia), the author, who had separated
from her husband and  had subsequently left Colombia and taken up  residence
in Italy, was engaged in procedures  before the Colombian courts  concerning
visiting rights  and custody  of her  two children.   She  claimed that  the
proceedings  had  been  deliberately  delayed  by  the  Colombian   judicial
authorities.   The  Committee observed  that  the  concept of  "fair  trial"
includes also other elements than those  of impartiality and independence of
the judicial authorities:

"Among these ... are the respect for the  principles of equality of arms, of
adversary proceedings and of expeditious proceedings.   In the present case,
the Committee is not  satisfied that the requirement of equality of arms and
of expeditious procedure have  been met.  It is noteworthy that every  court
action  instituted  by the  author took  several years  to adjudicate  - and
difficulties in communication  with the author,  who does not reside  in the
State party's territory, cannot account  for such delays, as she had secured
legal  representation in Colombia.   The State  party has  failed to explain
these  delays.  On  the other  hand, actions instituted by  the author's ex-
husband  and by  or on  behalf of  her children  were heard  and  determined
considerably  more  expeditiously.    As  the  Committee  has  noted  in its

admissibility  decision,   the  very  nature   of  custody  proceedings   or
proceedings concerning access of a divorced  parent to his children requires
that  the  issues  complained  of  be  adjudicated  expeditiously.    In the
Committee's opinion, given the delays in  the determination of the  author's
actions, this has not been the case" (annex X, sect. J, para. 8.4).

527.   Article 14, paragraph 3 (c), gives every accused  person the right to
be tried  without undue delay.  In case No. 447/1991 (Shalto v. Trinidad and
Tobago), the Committee  found that the  delay of almost  four years  between
the judgement of the  Court of Appeal  ordering a retrial and the  beginning
of the retrial could  not be deemed compatible with this provision.  In case
No.  473/1991  (Barroso v.  Panama),  the  Committee  found  a violation  of
article 14,  paragraph 3  (c), because of a  delay of over three  and a half
years between indictment and trial.

528.  Pursuant  to article 14, paragraph 3 (e), an accused person shall have
the right  to examine, or have  examined, the witnesses  against him and  to
obtain the attendance and examination  of witnesses on his  behalf under the
same conditions  as witnesses  brought against  him.   In communication  No.
536/1993 (Perera  v.  Australia),  which was  declared inadmissible  by  the
Committee, the author  complained that his defence  lawyer had not called  a
certain witness for his defence.  The Committee considered:

"that the State party cannot be held accountable  for alleged errors made by
a defence lawyer, unless  it was or should have  been manifest to  the judge
that the lawyer's behaviour was incompatible  with the interests of justice"
(annex XI, sect. G, para. 6.3).

529.   In case  Nos. 464/1991  and 482/1991  (Garfield and  Andrew Peart  v.
Jamaica), a statement made to the police by  the main prosecution witness in
the evening after  the murder for  which the complainants  were charged  was
not  made available  to  the  defence.   It  was shown  that  the  statement
materially  differed from the  statement at  the preliminary  hearing and at
the trial.    In  the  specific circumstances  of  the case,  the  Committee
considered that the failure to make  the statement available to  the defence
had  seriously  obstructed  the defence  in  its  cross-examination  of  the
witness, thereby precluding a fair trial.

530.   Article 14, paragraph 5,  gives anyone convicted of a crime the right
to have his conviction and  sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according
to  law.  In case  No. 536/1993  (Perera  v.  Australia), the  Committee had
occasion to observe that  article 14, paragraph 5,  does not require  that a
Court of Appeal  proceed to a factual retrial,  but that a  Court conduct an
evaluation of the evidence presented at the trial and of the conduct of  the
trial.
  (f)Right to privacy (Covenant, art. 17)

531.    Under article  17, paragraph  1,  of  the Covenant  no one  shall be
subjected to arbitrary or  unlawful interference with  his privacy,  family,
home  or  correspondence,  nor  to  unlawful   attacks  on  his  honour  and
reputation.    In  case  No.  453/1991  (Coeriel  v.  the  Netherlands), the
Committee had to determine whether article 17  protected the right to choose
and change one's own  name.  The authors of the communication had  requested
a change of surname in order to enable them to pursue  their religious Hindu
studies,  which  had  been  refused  by the  State  party.    The  Committee
considered:

"that  the notion  of privacy  refers to  the sphere  of a  person's life in
which he or she  can freely express  his or her identity, be it  by entering
into relationships  with others or alone.  The Committee is of the view that
a person's surname constitutes an important  component of one's identity and
that the protection  against arbitrary or  unlawful interference  with one's
privacy includes the  protection against arbitrary or unlawful  interference
with  the right to  choose and change  one's own name.   For  instance, if a
State were  to compel all  foreigners to change  their surnames, this  would
constitute interference in contravention of article  17" (annex X, sect.  D,

para. 10.2).

In the circumstances of  the case, the Committee  found that the  refusal of
the  authors' request to  have their  surnames changed  was unreasonable and
therefore  arbitrary within the  meaning of article 17,  paragraph 1, of the
Covenant.   Two members  of the  Committee appended  a dissenting individual
opinion to the Committee's finding of a violation.

(g)Freedom of expression (Covenant, art. 19)

532.   Under  article  19,  paragraph 1,  everyone  has the  right  to  hold
opinions without interference;  paragraph 2  gives everyone  the freedom  of
expression.   The rights  provided for  in article  19, paragraph 2,  may be
subject to  certain restrictions, but only  as are provided  by law and  are
necessary for the protection of the rights or  reputations of others or  for
the protection of national security, public  order (ordre public), or public
health or morals.

533.   In case No. 518/1992 (Sohn  v. the Republic of Korea),  the author, a
labour  union leader, had  been arrested,  charged and  convicted for having
issued a  statement of support  for a strike at a  shipyard.  His conviction
was based  on article  13 (2)  of the  Labour Dispute Adjustment  Act, which
prohibits  third-party  intervention in  labour  disputes.    The  Committee
observed:

"that any restriction of  the freedom of expression pursuant to paragraph  3
of article 19 must cumulatively meet the following  conditions:  it must  be
provided  for  by  law,  it  must  address one  of  the  aims  enumerated in
paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of article 19, and must  be necessary to achieve the
legitimate purpose.  While the State party  has stated that the restrictions
were  justified in order to  protect national security and  public order and
that  they were  provided for  by law,  under article  13 (2)  of the Labour
Dispute  Adjustment  Act,  the Committee  must still  determine  whether the
measures  taken against the  author were  necessary for  the purpose stated.
The Committee notes that the State  party has invoked national  security and
public order by reference to the general nature  of the labour movement  and
by alleging that  the statement issued by  the author in collaboration  with
others  was a  disguise  for  the incitement  to  a national  strike.    The
Committee considers that  the State party has  failed to specify the precise
nature  of the  threat  which  it  contends that  the  author's exercise  of
freedom of expression  posed and finds that  none of the  arguments advanced
by the State party suffice to render the  restriction of the author's  right
to freedom of expression  compatible with paragraph 3 of article 19"  (annex
X, sect. L, para. 10.4).

The Committee  concluded that article 19  had been violated  in the author's
case.

(h)The rights of the family and to marry (Covenant, art. 23)

534.   Article  23 of  the Covenant  protects the  family  and the  right to
marry. Paragraph  4  of the  article  provides  that States  parties  should
ensure equality  of rights and responsibilities  of spouses  as to marriage,
during  marriage and  at  its dissolution.    In the  case  of  dissolution,
provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

535.   In case No.  514/1992 (Fei v.  Colombia), the  author, whose marriage
was  dissolved,  had  been  hindered  in  having  regular  contact  with her
children.   The Committee  recalled its  observations in  case No.  201/1985
(Hendriks v. the Netherlands) that article  23, paragraph 4, grants, barring
exceptional circumstances, a right  to regular contact  between children and
both of  their parents  upon  dissolution  of a  marriage.   The  unilateral
opposition of one parent generally does  not constitute such an  exceptional
circumstance.    The Committee  found  that  no special  circumstances  were
discernible in  the case  at hand which  could justify that  the mother  was
virtually excluded  from having access to her two daughters and it concluded

that there had been a violation of article 23, paragraph 4.

(i)The right of  a minor  to protection on the  part of his family,  society
and the State (Covenant, art. 24)

536.   Article 24  of the  Covenant provides  that every  child shall  have,
without any  discrimination, the  right to  such measures  of protection  as
required by his status as  a minor, on the part  of his family,  society and
the  State.   The  facts of  case  No.  400/1990  (Monaco de  Gallicchio  v.
Argentina)  showed that  the  author's  granddaughter disappeared,  together
with  her parents, in  1977, when  she was nine years  old.  The grandmother
managed to locate  her granddaughter in  1984; she  was then  living as  the
adopted daughter of one S.S., who  was subsequently charged with  concealing
the whereabouts of a minor and  forgery of documents.  In  January 1989, the
grandmother was  granted provisional guardianship over the child, but denied
the  right  to represent  the child  in  the various  proceedings; S.S.  was
granted visiting rights.   On 11 August 1992,  the adoption of  the child by
S.S.  was  nullified.   In  1993,  the  granddaughter's  legal identity  was
established.

537.  Noting the long delay in the  completion of the judicial  proceedings,
the Committee, in the specific circumstances of the case, found:

"that the  protection of children stipulated  in article 24  of the Covenant
required the  State party to  take affirmative action  to grant  Ms. Vicario
prompt and  effective relief  from her predicament.   In  this context,  the
Committee  recalls  its general  comment  on article  24,  28/ in  which  it
stressed  that every  child has  a right  to special measures  of protection
because of his/her status as  a minor; those special measures are additional
to the measures that States are required to  take under article 2 to  ensure
that everyone enjoys the  rights provided for  in the Covenant.  Bearing  in
mind the  suffering already  endured by Ms.  Vicario, who lost  both of  her
parents  under  tragic  circumstances  imputable  to the  State  party,  the
Committee  finds  that  the  special  measures  required  under article  24,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant, were  not expeditiously applied by  Argentina,
and that  the failure  to  recognize the  standing  of  Mrs. Monaco  in  the
guardianship  and   visitation  proceedings   and  the   delay  in   legally
establishing  Ms.  Vicario's  real  name and  issuing  identity  papers also
entailed a violation of article 24, paragraph 2,  of the Covenant, which  is
designed to promote recognition of the  child's legal personality" (annex X,
sect. B, para. 10.5).

(j)The right to vote and to be elected (Covenant, art. 25)

538.    Article  25  (b)  of  the  Covenant   protects  the  right  and  the
opportunity, without any of the distinctions  mentioned in article 2  of the
Covenant and without unreasonable restrictions, to  vote and to be  elected.
In case No.  500/1992 (Debreczeny v. the  Netherlands), the author, a  local
policeman,  was elected  to the  municipal council, but  was not  allowed to
take his  seat  because  under Dutch  law the  membership  in the  municipal
council  was   incompatible   with  employment   as  a   civil  servant   in
subordination to local authorities.  In its  Views, the Committee notes that
while  the right  provided  for by  article 25  is  not an  absolute  right,
restrictions of this right must be neither discriminatory nor  unreasonable.
In the  Committee's opinion, the application  of the  lawful restrictions to
the author did not constitute a violation of article 25 of the Covenant.

(k)The right to equality before  the law and to equal  protection by the law
and the prohibition of discrimination

539.  Article 26 of the Covenant  provides that all persons are equal before
the law and are entitled  without any discrimination to the equal protection
of the law.   In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and
guarantee   to  all   persons  equal   and  effective   protection   against
discrimination.

540.   In case  No. 516/1992  (Simunek et  al. v.  the Czech  Republic), the
authors had left  their country  (Czechoslovakia) for political reasons  and
had had their  property confiscated.   A law  enacted in  1991 provided  for
restitution  or compensation for confiscations carried out  by the Communist
Government, but excluded non-residents and non-Czech citizens.  The  authors
argued that the  application of this law violated their rights under article
26.  The Committee considered that:

  "In examining whether  the conditions for restitution or compensation  are
compatible  with  the Covenant,  the Committee  must  consider all  relevant
factors,  including the  authors'  original entitlement  to the  property in
question  and the  nature  of  the confiscations.   The  State  party itself
acknowledges that  the confiscations were  discriminatory, and  this is  the
reason  why specific  legislation  was enacted  to  provide  for  a form  of
restitution.    The  Committee  observes  that  such  legislation  must  not
discriminate  among  the  victims  of  the  prior  confiscations, since  all
victims are entitled to redress without  arbitrary distinctions.  Bearing in
mind that the  authors' original entitlement to their respective  properties
was not predicated either on citizenship  or residence, the Committee  finds
that  the  conditions  of  citizenship  and  residence  in  Act  87/1991 are
unreasonable.  In this  connection the Committee notes that the State  party
has  not advanced  any  grounds  which  would  justify  these  restrictions.
Moreover, it has  been submitted that the authors  and many others in  their
situation left  Czechoslovakia because of  their political opinions and that
their  property was confiscated  either because  of their political opinions
or  because  of  their emigration  from  the  country.    These  victims  of
political persecution sought  residence and citizenship in other  countries.
Taking  into account  that  the State  party itself  is responsible  for the
departure  of the  authors, it  would be  incompatible with  the Covenant to
require them permanently to return to the country  as a prerequisite for the
restitution  of   their  property  or   for  the   payment  of   appropriate
compensation.

   "The State  party contends  that there  is no  violation of the  Covenant
because  the Czech and  Slovak legislators  had no  discriminatory intent at
the  time of the  adoption of Act  87/1991.  The  Committee is  of the view,
however, that  the intent  of the legislature  is not  alone dispositive  in
determining  a  breach  of  article 26  of  the  Covenant.    A  politically
motivated differentiation is unlikely to be  compatible with article 26. But
an  act which is not  politically motivated may  still contravene article 26
if  its  effects are  discriminatory" (annex  X,  sect.  K, paras.  11.6 and
11.7).

Consequently, the  Committee found a violation of article 26 in the authors'
case.

(l)The right of persons belonging to minorities to  enjoy their own culture,
to profess  and practise their  own religion, or  to use  their own language
(Covenant, art. 27)

541.  Article 27 of the Covenant protects the  right of persons belonging to
minorities  to enjoy their  own culture, to  profess and  practise their own
religion,  or to use their own  language.  In  case No. 511/1992 (Lansman et
al.  v. Finland),  the authors,  who  belonged to  a local  Sami  community,
argued that  the  quarrying going  on in  their area  interfered with  their
reindeer husbandry.   In  its Views,  the Committee  recalled that  economic
activities may come within the ambit of article 17 if they are an  essential
element of the culture of an ethnic community:

  "The  right to enjoy  one's culture cannot be  determined in abstracto but
has  to be placed  in context.   In this connection,  the Committee observes
that article  27 does not  only protect  traditional means of  livelihood of
national  minorities,  as   indicated  in  the  State  party's   submission.
Therefore,  the fact  that the  authors may  have adapted  their  methods of
reindeer-herding over the years and may practise it with the help of  modern
technology does  not prevent them from  invoking article 27 of the Covenant"

(annex X, sect. I, para. 9.3).

In the specific circumstances of the case, the  Committee concluded that the
quarrying which had taken  place did not constitute a denial of the authors'
right to  enjoy their own culture.   The Committee  noted, however, that  if
mining activities were to be  approved on a large scale  in the future, this
might constitute a violation  of the authors' rights  under article 27.  The
Committee stated that the State party was under a duty  to keep this in mind
when either extending existing contracts or granting new ones.


F.  Remedies called for under the Committee's Views

542.  The Committee's decisions on  the merits are referred to as "Views" in
article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.   After the Committee  has
made a finding  of a violation  of a provision of the  Covenant, it proceeds
to ask the  State party to take appropriate  steps to remedy the  violation.
For  instance, in the period  covered by the  present report, the Committee,
in a case concerning custody and children's rights, found as follows:

  "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.  In the Committee's opinion,  this entails guaranteeing the author's
regular access to her  daughters, and that the  State party ensure  that the
terms of the judgments in the author's favour are  complied with.  The State
party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not  occur
in the future" (annex X, sect. J, para. 10).
  The Committee further observed that:

  "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  and  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  90  days,
information  about the  measures taken  to  give  effect to  the Committee's
Views" (annex X, sect. J, para. 11).


G.  Non-cooperation by States parties

543.   The following States  have offered no cooperation  in the Committee's
consideration  of communications  under the  Optional Protocol  relating  to
them: Central  African Republic, Dominican  Republic, Equatorial Guinea  and
Zaire.
IX.  FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL


544.   From its seventh  session, in 1979,  to its  fifty-fourth session, in
July   1994,  the  Human   Rights  Committee   has  adopted   208  Views  on
communications  received and considered  under the  Optional Protocol.   The
Committee has  found violations in  154 of them.   For  many years, however,
the  Committee was informed  by States  parties in only a  limited number of
cases  of any measures taken  by them to  give effect  to the Views adopted.
Because  of  lack  of  knowledge  about  State  party  compliance  with  its
decisions, the Committee has  devised a mechanism that  should enable it  to
evaluate State party compliance with its Views.

545.   During its  thirty-ninth session  (July 1990),  following a  thorough
debate on the Committee's competence to  engage in follow-up activities, the
Committee established a procedure for monitoring  the follow-up to its Views
under  article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.   At the same time,
the Committee  created the mandate of  Special Rapporteur  for the follow-up
on Views. His mandate  is spelt out in annex XI of the Committee's report to

the General Assembly at  its forty-fifth session. 29/  From the thirty-ninth
(July 1990)  to the forty-seventh (March  1993) session, the  late Mr. Janos
Fodor  acted as  Special Rapporteur  for the  follow-up  on  Views.   At the
forty-seventh session  (March 1993), Mr.  Andreas Mavrommatis was  appointed
Special  Rapporteur for  follow-up on Views.   His mandate  was extended for
another  two years  at  the fifty-third  session (March  1995).   During its
fifty-first session the Committee adopted  a new rule of procedure, rule 95,
which spells out the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. 30/

546.  Pursuant to his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has requested  follow-
up information  from States  parties since  the autumn of  1990.   Follow-up
information has systematically been requested in  respect of all Views  with
a  finding  of a  violation  of  the Covenant.    At  the beginning  of  the
Committee's fifty-fourth  session, follow-up information  had been  received
in  respect of 81 Views.  No information had been  received in respect of 62
Views;  in five cases, the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had
not yet expired.   It may be noted  that in many  instances, the Secretariat
has  also  received  information  from  authors   to  the  effect  that  the
Committee's  Views  had  not  been implemented.  Conversely,  in  some  rare
instances,  the author of  a communication  has informed  the Committee that
the State party did give effect  to the Committee's recommendations, whereas
the State party did not provide this information.

547.  There are certain difficulties  in attempting to categorize  follow-up
replies.   By the beginning of the fifty-fourth  session, it transpired that
approximately 30 per cent of the replies received were satisfactory in  that
they displayed  a willingness on  the part of  the State  party to implement
the  Committee's Views  or to  offer  the  applicant an  appropriate remedy.
Many replies  simply indicated that the  victim had failed  to file a  claim
for  compensation within  the statutory  deadlines  and that,  therefore, no
compensation  could be  paid to  the victim.   Another  category  of replies
cannot be considered fully satisfactory in that they either did not  address
the  Committee's recommendations  at all  or  merely  related to  one aspect
thereof.

548.    The  remainder  of  the  replies  either  explicitly  challenged the
Committee's  findings  on  factual  or  on  legal  grounds  (nine  replies),
indicated that the  State party would not, for  one reason or another,  give
effect  to  the Committee's  recommendations  (nine  replies),  promised  an
investigation of the matter considered by  the Committee or constituted much
belated submissions on the merits of the case.

549.   A  country-by-country  breakdown  of follow-up  replies  received  or
requested and outstanding as of 28 July 1995 gives the following picture:
    Argentina1  decision  finding  violations,  follow-up  deadline  not yet
expired.

  Australia1  decision  finding  violations  (preliminary), follow-up  reply
received.

  Austria1  decision  finding  violations (unsatisfactory),  follow-up reply
received.

  Bolivia2 Views finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Cameroon1 decision finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Canada6 Views finding violations, 3 fully satisfactory follow-up  replies,
2 (incomplete) follow-up replies, no follow-up reply in 1 case.

  Central African Republic1 decision finding violations, no follow-up  reply
received.

  Colombia7 Views  finding violations, 6  follow-up replies challenging  the
Committee's  findings  or  amounting  to  late  submissions on  the  merits;
deadline for follow-up submission not expired in 1 case.

  Dominican  Republic3  Views finding  violations,  1  follow-up  reply,  no
replies in 2 cases.

  EcuadorThree  Views finding  violations, 1  follow-up reply  received,  no
replies received in 2 cases.

  Equatorial Guinea2 Views finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Finland4 Views  finding violations,  follow-up replies received  in all  4
cases.

  France1 decision finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  HungaryOne  decision  finding violations  (preliminary),  follow-up  reply
received.

  Jamaica37  Views finding  violations, 9  follow-up replies  received,  all
indicating  that  the  State  party  will  not  implement  the   Committee's
recommendations; no follow-up reply in 18 cases.

  Libyan Arab  Jamahiriya1 decision finding  violations, no follow-up  reply
received.

  Madagascar4 Views finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Mauritius1 decision finding violations, follow-up reply received.

   Netherlands4 Views finding violations, follow-up replies received in  all
4 cases.

  Nicaragua1 View finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Panama1 decision finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Peru4 Views  finding violations, follow-up  replies indicating that  Views
were passed  on to  the Supreme  Court for action  in 2  cases, no  followup
replies received in 2 cases.

  Senegal1 decision finding violations, follow-up reply received.

  Spain1 decision finding violations, follow-up reply received.

  Suriname8 Views finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Trinidad  and  Tobago3   Views  finding  violations,  1  follow-up   reply
received, no follow-up reply in 1 case, followup deadline in  1 case not yet
expired.

  Uruguay45  Views finding  violations, 43  follow-up replies  received,  no
follow-up replies in 2 cases.

  Venezuela1 decision finding violations, follow-up reply received.

  Zaire9 Views finding violations, no follow-up reply received.

  Zambia2 Views finding  violations, 1 complete  and 1 (preliminary) follow-
up reply received.


550.   The overall  results of the first  five years of experience  with the
follow-up  procedure  are  encouraging,  yet  they  cannot  be termed  fully
satisfactory.  Some  States parties replying  under the  follow-up procedure
have indeed argued that they are implementing  the Committee's Views by, for
example,  releasing from  detention victims  of human rights  violations, by
granting the victim  compensation for  the violations suffered, by  amending
legislation found  incompatible with the provisions  of the  Covenant, or by

offering the complainant other  forms of remedies.  Some States parties have
acted on the  Committee's Views and granted or  offered some form of  remedy
but failed to inform the Committee accordingly.

551.   On the other  hand, a number  of States parties  have indicated  that
compensatory payments to  the victim or victims were made ex gratia, notably
where  the domestic  legal system  does  not provide  for compensation  in a
different  manner, or  that  a remedy  was offered  ex  gratia.   This,  for
example,  was the  argument  of the  Government of  the  Netherlands  in its
follow-up replies on the Committee's Views  in respect of communications No.
305/1988 (Hugo van Alphen v. Netherlands) and  No. 453/1991 (Coeriel v.  the
Netherlands).

 552.  The Committee is equally aware that the absence of specific  enabling
legislation is a crucial  factor which often stands  in the way  of monetary
compensation  to victims of violations  of the Covenant.  This argument was,
for example, adduced by the Government of Austria in its follow-up reply  on
the Views in case  No. 415/1990 (Pauger v.  Austria), and by  the Government
of Senegal in its follow-up  reply on the  Views in case No. 386/1989  (Kone
v.  Senegal).   The  Committee  commends  those  States  parties which  have
compensated  victims of  violations of  the  Covenant; it  encourages States
parties  to consider  the  adoption of  specific  enabling  legislation and,
pending this, to make ex gratia payments by way of compensation.

553.   In  the  case  of Peru,  where enabling  legislation does  exist, the
Committee considered  whether it was appropriate  to treat  the complaint of
the  author  of   communication  No.  203/1986  (Munoz  Hermosa  v.   Peru),
contending that  the  Committee's Views  had  not  been implemented  by  the
Peruvian courts, as a  new case under the Optional Protocol.  The  Committee
concluded  that, on balance,  the author's  contention that  the State party
had failed to  provide him with a remedy  should be examined in the  context
of the follow-up procedure.

554.   Since it  began to  discuss follow-up matters in  1990, the Committee
has  carefully examined and  analysed all  the information  gathered through
the followup procedure.  Between the  forty-first and fiftieth sessions,  it
considered  follow-up information on a confidential basis.  Periodic reports
on  follow-up  activities  (so-called  "progress  reports")  were  not  made
public,  and  the discussions  on  follow-up  issues  took  place in  closed
meetings.

555.   At the same time, however, the Committee  acknowledged that publicity
for follow-up activities would be the most appropriate means for making  the
procedure more effective.   Thus, publicity  for follow-up  activities would
not only  be in  the interest  of victims  of violations  of the  Covenant's
provisions,  but  could  also  serve  to   enhance  the  authority  of   the
Committee's Views and provide an incentive  for States parties to  implement
them.   The  reaction  of States  parties  to the  increased  publicity  and
visibility of follow-up activities since the  publication of the last Annual
Report, and  the interest of academic  and non-governmental institutions  in
the follow-up  procedure, has reinforced the Committee's resolve to continue
to give publicity to the procedure.

556.   During its forty-seventh session  in March-April  1993, the Committee
agreed in principle that information on  follow-up activities should be made
public.  Discussions on  this issue  have  been  held regularly  since then.
During the fiftieth session in March  1994, the Committee formally adopted a
number  of  decisions  concerning the  effectiveness  and  publicity  of the
follow-up procedure. These decisions were the following:

  (a)  Every form of publicity will be given to follow-up activities;

  (b)  Annual  Reports shall include a  separate and highly  visible chapter
on follow-up  activities under the Optional  Protocol.   This should clearly
convey to  the public  which States have  cooperated and  which States  have
failed to  cooperate with the Special Rapporteur for the follow-up on Views.

Paragraph  547 above conveys  which States  parties have and  which have not
provided follow-up  information or  cooperated with  the Special  Rapporteur
for the follow-up on Views;

  (c)  Reminders  shall be sent to all  States parties which have failed  to
provide follow-up information.  Thus, between  December 1994 and June  1995,
some 65 follow-up reminders  were sent to  States which had failed to  reply
to  requests for follow-up  information from the  Special Rapporteur.   As a
result of these reminders, some States  did formulate follow-up replies  and
forward them to the Special Rapporteur;
    (d)   Press communiques  will be  issued once  a year  after the  summer
session  of   the  Committee,  highlighting   both  positive  and   negative
developments  concerning   the  Committee's  and  the  Special  Rapporteur's
follow-up activities;

  (e)     The   Committee   welcomes  information   which   non-governmental
organizations might wish  to submit as to  what measures States parties have
taken,  or  failed  to  take,  in  respect  of  the  implementation  of  the
Committee's Views;

  (f)   The  Special Rapporteur  and  members of  the Committee  should,  as
appropriate,  establish contacts  with particular  Governments and permanent
missions  to  the  United  Nations  to  make  further  inquiries  about  the
implementation  of  the  Committee's  Views.    Following  the  fifty-second
session, Committee member Julio  Prado Vallejo had  contacts with government
authorities in Colombia and Peru, during which the question of follow-up  to
some  of the Committee's  Views was raised.   During the fifty-third session
of  the Committee (March-April  1995), the  Special Rapporteur  met with the
Permanent Representatives of  Colombia, Suriname and  Zambia to discuss what
the Governments concerned  might be prepared  to do  to give  effect to  the
Committee's  Views  adopted  in  respect  of  those  States.    The  Special
Rapporteur  regrets  that,  during  the  same  session,  he  was  unable  to
establish direct  contacts with the  Permanent Missions of Equatorial Guinea
and Zaire;

  (g)  The Committee should draw the attention  of States parties, at  their
biannual  meetings,  to the  failure  of  certain  States  to implement  the
Committee's Views and to cooperate with  the Special Rapporteur in providing
information on the implementation of Views.

Follow-up mission by the Special Rapporteur to Jamaica, June 1995

557.   In  accordance  with his  mandate  under  rule  95 of  the  rules  of
procedure, the  Special  Rapporteur  conducted  his  first  mission  in  the
context of  the follow-up procedure.   From  24 to 30 June  1995, he visited
Jamaica  and  held  discussions  with  the  Jamaican  Government,   judicial
authorities, and non-governmental organizations.

558.   During  his mission,  the Special Rapporteur  had the  opportunity to
meet many government officials and representatives  of the judiciary and the
penitentiary  system,  as well  as  the  Governor-General  of  Jamaica.   He
appreciates  the spirit of  cooperation and  the frankness  of the exchanges
which characterized the entire mission.

559.     The   Special  Rapporteur   thoroughly  discussed  the   status  of
implementation of the Committee's Views adopted  in respect of Jamaica  with
the  authorities.    He  was  informed   of  the  constitutional  and  legal
constraints which have tended  to make it  difficult for the State party  to
implement fully the Committee's Views. None  the less, many death  sentences
had  recently been commuted,  and the  Minister for  Foreign Affairs pledged
full  cooperation with the  Committee and  the Special  Rapporteur under the
follow-up procedure.

560.   At other  levels, the  Special Rapporteur was told  that the Jamaican
Government  considers the  Committee's  Views to  be  mere  recommendations,
thereby  implying  a  reluctance to  comply  with the  Views.   The  Special

Rapporteur  did indicate, while acknowledging the State party's readiness to
"consider" the Committee's Views, that compliance  with its Views still left
much to be desired.

561.   Finally,  the Special  Rapporteur was able  to ascertain  the efforts
undertaken by  the Jamaican  Government to  improve certain  aspects of  the
administration of justice.  He  was informed about efforts to improve prison
facilities  in  general   and  sanitary  conditions  in  particular;   about
improvements in the examination of allegations  of prisoner abuse by wardens
and  the  payment  of  compensation to  inmates,  where  appropriate;  about
improvements relating  to  the  availability of  written judgements  of  the
Court of Appeal of  Jamaica; about better  medical care in the  penitentiary
system;  and about  draft legislation  currently under  consideration  which
would  greatly improve  the  system of  legal aid  in  capital cases.    The
Special Rapporteur  expresses his  hope that  these reforms or  improvements
will be implemented and effected with all due speed.

562.  On 25 July  1995, the Special Rapporteur reported to the Committee  on
his  mission  to Jamaica.   Following  its  discussion  on the  mission, the
Committee,  noting  the  improved  compliance  by  Jamaica with  its  Views,
requested  the  Special  Rapporteur  to   continue  his  contacts  with  the
Government of  Jamaica,  with a  view to  ensuring that  Jamaica achieves  a
greater degree  of  compliance with  the  Committee's  decisions.   In  this
context,  the Special  Rapporteur  recalled that  formal  follow-up  replies
remained outstanding in respect  of 18 Views, and noted that the State party
had promised to forward the outstanding replies with all due speed.

Concern over instances of non-cooperation under the follow-up mandate

563.   In spite  of the progress  in collecting  follow-up information since
the  adoption of  the  last Annual  Report, the  Committee  and  the Special
Rapporteur note  with concern  that a number  of countries  have either  not
provided any  follow-up information or have not replied to requests from the
Special Rapporteur.  Those  States which have  not replied in respect of  at
least two  follow-up requests,  or which  have not  replied to  requests for
information in spite of two follow-up reminders, are:   Bolivia (no reply in
respect  of two  cases); Dominican  Republic  (no reply  in respect  of  two
cases);  Equatorial Guinea  (no reply in  respect of two  cases); France (no
follow-up reply in respect of one decision in  spite of two reminders); Peru
(no reply in respect of two  cases); Suriname (no reply in  respect of eight
cases); Uruguay (no  reply in respect of two cases); and Zaire  (no reply in
respect of nine cases).

564.  The Special Rapporteur urges these States parties and all those  which
have failed to reply to  his requests for follow-up information  to do so in
a timely manner.   In future Annual  Reports, the Committee will single  out
the  worst  cases  of non-compliance  with  its  Views  and  report  on them
individually, should there be no reaction  to further requests for follow-up
information.

565.  The  Committee reconfirms that  it will  keep the  functioning of  the
follow-up procedure under constant review.  It  has requested that at  least
one follow-up mission per  year be budgeted and scheduled by the Centre  for
Human Rights in the years to come.


Notes

  1/    Official  Records of  the  General  Assembly,  Forty-ninth  Session,
Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40), para. 14.

  2/   Official  Records  of  the  General  Assembly,  Forty-ninth  Session,
Supplement No. 40  (A/49/40), annex XI.

  3/    Official  Records  of  the  General Assembly,  Forty-ninth  Session,
Supplement No. 40, (A/49/40), paras. 36 to 56. 

  4/    Official Records  of  the  General Assembly,  Thirty-sixth  Session,
Supplement No. 40 (A/36/40), annex V.

   5/   Ibid., Forty-fifth  Session, Supplement  No. 40  (A/45/40), vol.  I,
para. 12.

  6/   Ibid., Forty-sixth  Session, Supplement  No. 40  (A/46/40), paras. 21
and 32 and annex VII.

  7/  Ibid., Forty-eighth Session, Supplement  No. 40 (A/48/40), paras. 166-
182. 

  8/  Ibid., Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40), para. 61. 

  9/   At  its 1382nd  meeting (fifty-second  session), held  on 2  November
1994.

  10/   At  its 1382nd  meeting (fifty-second  session), held  on 2 November
1994.

  11/   At its  1383rd meeting (fifty-second  session), held  on 3  November
1994.

  12/   At its  1383rd meeting  (fifty-second session),  held on  3 November
1994.

  13/  At its 1411th meeting (fifty-third session), held on 5 April 1995.

  14/  At its 1411th meeting (fifty-third session), held on 5 April 1995.

  15/  At the 1412th meeting (fifty-third session) held on 5 April 1995.

  16/  At its 1412th meeting (fifty-third session), held on 5 April 1995.

  17/  At its 1414th meeting (fifty-third session), held on 5 April 1995.

  18/   Consistent with  the practice of  the Committee,  the State  party's
expert,  Mr.  Buergenthal, did  not take  part in  the formulation  of these
comments.

  19/  At the 1413th meeting (fifty-third session) held on 6 April 1995.

  20/  At its 1440th meeting (fifty-fourth session), held on 26 July 1995.

  21/  At its 1441st meeting (fifty-fourth session), held on 26 July 1995.

  22/  At its 1440th meeting (fifty-fourth session), held on 26 July 1995.

  23/  At its 1442nd meeting (fifty-fourth session), held on 27 July 1995.

  24/   In  accordance with  the Committee's  practice, the  expert from the
State party,  Mrs. Higgins,  did not  take part  in the  preparation of  the
comments.

  25/  The written  observations setting out  the view of the Government  on
the Committee's  General Comment No. 24(52)  were submitted  to the Chairman
of the Committee on 21 July 1995.

  26/  At its 1443rd meeting (fifty-fourth session), held on 27 July 1995.

  27/   See, inter  alia, the  judgement of  the Judicial  Committee of  the
Privy Council dated 2 November 1993 (Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica).

  28/  General Comment  No. 17, adopted  at the thirty-fifth session of  the
Committee in 1989.

  29/    Official Records  of  the  General Assembly,  Forty-fifth  Session,
Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40).

  30/   Ibid., Forty-ninth  Session, Supplement  No. 40  (A/49/40), vol.  I,
annex VI.

--Annex I

        STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
        RIGHTS AND TO THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS AND STATES WHICH HAVE MADE THE
DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE COVENANT AS AT 28 JULY 1995


  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

                A.  States parties to the International Covenant
                    on Civil and Political Rights (131)

Afghanistan  24 January 1983 (a)  24 April 1983
Albania   4 October 1991 (a)   4 January 1992
Algeria  12 September 1989  12 December 1989
Angola10 January 1992 (a)  10 April 1992
Argentina   8 August 1986   8 November 1986

Armenia  23 June 1993  23 September 1993
Australia  13 August 1980  13 November 1980
Austria  10 September 1978  10 December 1978
Azerbaijan  13 August 1992 (a)  13 November 1992
Barbados   5 January 1973 (a)  23 March 1976

Belarus  12 November 1973  23 March 1976
Belgium  21 April 1983  21 July 1983
Benin12 March 1992 (a)  12 June 1992
Bolivia  12 August 1982 (a)  12 November 1982
Bosnia and
  Herzegovina   1 September 1993 (d)   6 March 1992

Brazil24 January 1992 (a)24 April 1992
Bulgaria  21 September 1970  23 March 1976
Burundi   9 May 1990 (a)   9 August 1990
Cambodia  26 May 1992 (a)  26 August 1992
Cameroon  27 June 1984 (a)  27 September 1984

Canada  19 May 1976 (a)  19 August 1976
Cape Verde   6 August 1993 (a)   6 November 1993
Central African
  Republic   8 May 1981 (a)   8 August 1981
Chad      9 June 1995 (a)   9 September 1995
Chile  10 February 1972  23 March 1976

Colombia  29 October 1969  23 March 1976
Congo   5 October 1983 (a)   5 January 1984
Costa Rica  29 November 1968  23 March 1976
Cote d'Ivoire  26 March 1992 (a)  26 June 1992
Croatia  12 October 1992 (d)   8 October 1991

  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

Cyprus   2 April 1969  23 March 1976
Czech Republic  22 February 1993 (d)   1 January 1993

Democratic People's
  Republic of Korea  14 September 1981 (a)  14 December 1981
Denmark   6 January 1972  23 March 1976
Dominica  17 June 1993 (a)  17 September 1993

Dominican Republic   4 January 1978 (a)   4 April 1978
Ecuador   6 March 1969  23 March 1976
Egypt  14 January 1982  14 April 1982
El Salvador  30 November 1979  29 February 1980
Equatorial Guinea  25 September 1987 (a)  25 December 1987

Estonia21 October 1991 (a)21 January 1992
Ethiopia  11 June 1993 (a)  11 September 1993
Finland  19 August 1975  23 March 1976
France   4 November 1980 (a)   4 February 1981
Gabon  21 January 1983 (a)  21 April 1983

Gambia  22 March 1979 (a)  22 June 1979
Georgia   3 May 1994 (a)   3 August 1994
Germany    17 December 1973  23 March 1976
Grenada   6 September 1991 (a)   6 December 1991
Guatemala   6 May 1992 (a)   5 August 1992

Guinea24 January 197824 April 1978
Guyana15 February 197715 May 1977
Haiti   6 February 1991 (a)   6 May 1991
Hungary  17 January 1974  23 March 1976
Iceland  22 August 1979  22 November 1979

India  10 April 1979 (a)  10 July 1979
Iran, Islamic
  Republic of  24 June 1975  23 March 1976
Iraq    25 January 1971  23 March 1976
Ireland   8 December 1989   8 March 1990
Israel   3 October 1991 (a)   3 January 1992

Italy  15 September 1978  15 December 1978
Jamaica   3 October 1975  23 March 1976
Japan  21 June 1979  21 September 1979
Jordan  28 May 1975  23 March 1976
Kenya   1 May 1972 (a)  23 March 1976

Kyrgyzstan   7 October 1994 (a)   7 January 1995
Latvia  14 April 1992 (a)  14 July 1992
Lebanon   3 November 1972 (a)  23 March 1976
Lesotho   9 September 1992 (a)   9 December 1992
Libyan Arab
  Jamahiriya  15 May 1970 (a)  23 March 1976
  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

Lithuania20 November 1991 (a)20 February 1992
Luxembourg  18 August 1983   18 November 1983
Madagascar  21 June 1971  23 March 1976
Malawi  22 December 1993 (a)  22 March 1994
Mali    16 July 1974 (a)  23 March 1976

Malta  13 September 1990 (a)  13 December 1990
Mauritius  12 December 1973 (a)  23 March 1976
Mexico  23 March 1981 (a)  23 June 1981
Moldova, Republic of  26 January 1993 (a)  26 April 1993
Mongolia  18 November 1974   23 March 1976

Morocco   3 May 1979   3 August 1979

Mozambique  21 July 1993 (a)  21 October 1993
Namibia  28 November 1994 (a)  28 February 1995
Nepal  14 May 1991  14 August 1991
Netherlands  11 December 1978  11 March 1979

New Zealand  28 December 1978  28 March 1979
Nicaragua  12 March 1980 (a)  12 June 1980
Niger   7 March 1986 (a)   7 June 1986
Nigeria  29 July 1993 (a)  29 October 1993
Norway  13 September 1972  23 March 1976

Panama   8 March 1977   8 June 1977
Paraguay  10 June 1992 (a)  10 September 1992
Peru    28 April 1978  28 July 1978
Philippines  23 October 1986  23 January 1987
Poland  18 March 1977  18 June 1977

Portugal  15 June 197815 September 1978
Republic of Korea  10 April 1990 (a)  10 July 1990
Romania   9 December 1974  23 March 1976
Russian Federation16 October 197323 March 1976
Rwanda  16 April 1975 (a)  23 March 1976

Saint Vincent and
  the Grenadines   9 November 1981 (a)   9 February 1982
San Marino  18 October 1985 (a)  18 January 1986
Senegal  13 February 1978  13 May 1978
Seychelles   5 May 1992 (a)   5 August 1992
Slovakia  28 May 1993 (d)    1 January 1993

Slovenia 6 July 1992 (d)25 June 1991
Somalia  24 January 1990 (a)  24 April 1990
Spain  27 April 1977   27 July 1977
Sri Lanka  11 June 1980 (a)  11 September 1980
Sudan  18 March 1986 (a)  18 June 1986

  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

Suriname  28 December 1976 (a)  28 March 1977
Sweden   6 December 1971  23 March 1976
Switzerland  18 June 1992 (a)  18 September 1992
Syrian Arab Republic  21 April 1969 (a)  23 March 1976
The former Yugoslav
  Republic of
  Macedonia   18 January 1994 (d)  17 September 1991

Togo    24 May 1984 (a)  24 August 1984
Trinidad and Tobago  21 December 1978 (a)  21 March 1979
Tunisia  18 March 1969  23 March 1976
Uganda  21 June 1995 (a)  21 September 1995
Ukraine  12 November 1973  23 March 1976

United Kingdom of
  Great Britain and
  Northern Ireland  20 May 1976  20 August 1976
United Republic of
  Tanzania  11 June 1976 (a)  11 September 1976
United States of
  America   8 June 1992   8 September 1992
Uruguay   1 April 1970  23 March 1976
Venezuela  10 May 1978  10 August 1978

Viet Nam  24 September 1982 (a)  24 December 1982

Yemen    9 February 1987 (a)   9 May 1987
Yugoslavia   2 June 1971  23 March 1976
Zaire   1 November 1976 (a)   1 February 1977
Zambia  10 April 1984 (a)  10 July 1984

Zimbabwe  13 May 1991 (a)  13 August 1991


B.  States parties to the Optional Protocol (84)

Algeria  12 September 1989 (a)  12 December 1990
Angola10 January 1992 (a)  10 April 1992
Argentina   8 August 1986 (a)   8 November 1986
Armenia  23 June 1993  23 September 1993
Australia  25 September 1991 (a)  25 December 1991

Austria  10 December 1987  10 March 1988
Barbados   5 January 1973 (a)  23 March 1976
Belarus  30 September 1992 (a)  30 December 1992
Belgium  17 May 1994 (a)  17 August 1994
Benin  12 March 1992 (a)  12 June 1992


  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

Bolivia  12 August 1982 (a)  12 November 1982
Bosnia and
  Herzegovina  1 March 1995  1 June 1995
Bulgaria  26 March 1992 (a)  26 June 1992
Cameroon  27 June 1984 (a)  27 September 1984
Canada  19 May 1976 (a)  19 August 1976

Central African
  Republic   8 May 1981 (a)   8 August 1981
Chad     9 June 1995 (a)   9 September 1995
Chile  28 May 1992 (a)  28 August 1992
Colombia  29 October 1969  23 March 1976
Congo   5 October 1983 (a)   5 January 1984

Costa Rica  29 November 1968  23 March 1976
Cyprus  15 April 1992  15 July 1992
Czech Republic  22 February 1993 (d)   1 January 1993
Denmark   6 January 1972  23 March 1976
Dominican Republic   4 January 1978 (a)   4 April 1978

Ecuador   6 March 1969  23 March 1976
El Salvador   6 June 1995   6 September 1995
Equatorial Guinea  25 September 1987 (a)  25 December 1987
Estonia21 October 1991 (a)21 January 1992
Finland  19 August 1975  23 March 1976

France  17 February 1984 (a)  17 May 1984
Gambia   9 June 1988 (a)   9 September 1988
Georgia   3 May 1994 (a)   3 August 1994
Germany  25 August 1993  25 November 1993
Guinea  17 June 1993  17 September 1993

Guyana  10 May 1993 (a)  10 August 1993
Hungary   7 September 1988 (a)   7 December 1988
Iceland  22 August 1979 (a)  22 November 1979
Ireland   8 December 1989   8 March 1990
Italy  15 September 1978  15 December 1978

Jamaica   3 October 1975  23 March 1976
Kyrgyzstan   7 October 1994 (a)   7 January 1995
Latvia  22 June 1994 (a)  22 September 1994
Libyan Arab
  Jamahiriya  16 May 1989 (a)  16 August 1989
Lithuania20 November 1991 (a)20 February 1992

Luxembourg  18 August 1983 (a)  18 November 1983
Madagascar  21 June 1971  23 March 1976
Malta  13 September 1990 (a)  13 December 1990
Mauritius  12 December 1973 (a)  23 March 1976
Mongolia  16 April 1991 (a)  16 July 1991

  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into
    State party     or succession (d)       force

Namibia  28 November 1994 (a)  28 February 1995
Nepal  14 May 1991 (a)  14 August 1991
Netherlands  11 December 1978  11 March 1979
New Zealand  26 May 1989 (a)  26 August 1989
Nicaragua  12 March 1980 (a)  12 June 1980

Niger   7 March 1986 (a)   7 June 1986
Norway  13 September 1972  23 March 1976
Panama   8 March 1977   8 June 1977
Paraguay  10 January 1995 (a)  10 April 1995
Peru     3 October 1980   3 January 1981

Philippines  22 August 1989 (a)  22 November 1989
Poland 7 November 1991 (a) 7 February 1992
Portugal   3 May 1983   3 August 1983
Republic of Korea  10 April 1990 (a)  10 July 1990
Romania  20 July 1993 (a)  20 October 1993

Russian Federation 1 October 1991 (a) 1 January 1992
Saint Vincent and
  the Grenadines   9 November 1981 (a)   9 February 1982
San Marino  18 October 1985 (a)  18 January 1986
Senegal  13 February 1978  13 May 1978
Seychelles   5 May 1992 (a)   5 August 1992

Slovakia  28 May 1993   1 January 1993
Slovenia  16 July 1993 (a)  16 October 1993
Somalia  24 January 1990 (a)  24 April 1990
Spain  25 January 1985 (a)  25 April 1985
Suriname  28 December 1976 (a)  28 March 1977

Sweden   6 December 1971  23 March 1976
the former Yugoslav
  Republic of
  Macedonia12 December 1994 (a)12 March 1995 
Togo    30 March 1988 (a)  30 June 1988
Trinidad and Tobago  14 November 1980 (a)  14 February 1981
Ukraine  25 July 1991 (a)  25 October 1991

Uruguay   1 April 1970  23 March 1976
Venezuela  10 May 1978  10 August 1978
Zaire   1 November 1976 (a)   1 February 1977
Zambia  10 April 1984 (a)  10 July 1984


  Date of receipt of the
instrument of ratification
     or accession (a)Date of entry into

    State party     or succession (d)       force

                 C.  Status of the Second Optional Protocol aiming
                     at the abolition of the death penalty (28)

Australia 2 October 1990 (a)   11 July 1991
Austria   2 March 1993   2 June 1993
Denmark  24 February 1994  24 May 1994
Ecuador  23 February 1993 (a)  23 May 1993
Finland   4 April 1991  11 July 1991

Germany   18 August 1992  18 November 1992
Hungary  24 February 1994 (a)  24 May 1994
Iceland   2 April 1991  11 July 1991
Ireland  18 June 1993 (a)  18 September 1993
Italy  14 February 1995  14 May 1995

Luxembourg  12 February 1992  12 May 1992
Malta29 December 199429 March 1995
Mozambique  21 July 1993 (a)  21 October 1993
Namibia  28 November 1994 (a)  28 February 1995
Netherlands  26 March 1991  11 July 1991

New Zealand22 February 1990  11 July 1991
Norway   5 September 1991   5 December 1991
Panama  21 January 1993 (a)  21 April 1993
Portugal  17 October 1990  11 July 1991
Romania  27 February 1991  11 July 1991

Seychelles  15 December 1994 (a)  15 March 1995
Slovenia  10 March 1994  10 June 1994
Spain  11 April 1991  11 July 1991
Sweden  11 May 1990  11 July 1991
Switzerland  16 June 1994 (a)  16 September 1994

The former Yugoslav
   Republic of
   Macedonia26 January 1995 (a)26 April 1995 
Uruguay  21 January 1993  21 April 1993
Venezuela  22 February 1993  22 May 1993

State party     Valid from                     Valid until

                 D.  States which have made the declaration under
                     article 41 of the Covenant (44)

Algeria  12 September 1989  Indefinitely
Argentina   8 August 1986  Indefinitely
Australia  28 January 1993  Indefinitely
Austria  10 September 1978  Indefinitely
Belarus  30 September 1992  Indefinitely

Belgium   5 March 1987  Indefinitely
Bosnia and
  Herzegovina   6 March 1992  Indefinitely
Bulgaria  12 May 1993  Indefinitely
Canada  29 October 1979  Indefinitely
Chile  11 March 1990  Indefinitely

Congo   7 July 1989  Indefinitely
Czech Republic   1 January 1993  Indefinitely
Denmark  23 March 1976  Indefinitely
Ecuador  24 August 1984  Indefinitely
Finland  19 August 1975  Indefinitely

Gambia   9 June 1988  Indefinitely

Germany   28 March 1979  27 March 1996
Guyana  10 May 1993  Indefinitely
Hungary   7 September 1988  Indefinitely
Iceland  22 August 1979  Indefinitely

Ireland   8 December 1989  Indefinitely
Italy  15 September 1978  Indefinitely
Luxembourg  18 August 1983  Indefinitely
Malta  13 September 1990  Indefinitely
Netherlands  11 December 1978  Indefinitely

New Zealand  28 December 1978  Indefinitely
Norway  23 March 1976  Indefinitely
Peru     9 April 1984  Indefinitely
Philippines  23 October 1986  Indefinitely
Poland  25 September 1990    Indefinitely

Republic of Korea  10 April 1990  Indefinitely
Russian Federation 1 October 1991  Indefinitely
Senegal   5 January 1981  Indefinitely
Slovakia   1 January 1993  Indefinitely
Slovenia   6 July 1992  Indefinitely

Spain  25 January 1985  25 January 1993
Sri Lanka  11 June 1980  Indefinitely
Sweden  23 March 1976  Indefinitely
Switzerland  18 September 1992  18 September 1997
Tunisia  24 June 1993  Indefinitely

State party     Valid from                     Valid until

Ukraine  28 July 1992  Indefinitely
United Kingdom of
  Great Britain and
  Northern Ireland  20 May 1976  Indefinitely
United States
  of America   8 September 1992  Indefinitely
Zimbabwe  20 August 1991  Indefinitely
--Annex II

MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1995-1996


A.  Membership

Mr. Francisco Jose AGUILAR URBINA*  Costa Rica
Mr. Nisuke ANDO**  Japan
Mr. Prafullachandra NATWARLAL BAGHWATI**  India
Mr. Tamas BAN*  Hungary
Mr. Marco Tulio BRUNI CELLI*  Venezuela
Mr. Thomas BUERGENTHAL**  United States of America
Ms. Christine CHANET**  France
Mr. Omran EL SHAFEI**  Egypt
Ms. Elizabeth EVATT*  Australia
Mr. Laurel FRANCIS*  Jamaica
Ms. Rosalyn HIGGINS*  United Kingdom of Great Britain
        and Northern Ireland
Mr. Eckart KLEIN**  Germany
Mr. David KRETZMER**  Israel
Mr. Rajsoomer LALLAH*  Mauritius
Mr. Andreas V. MAVROMMATIS*  Cyprus
Ms. Cecilia Medina QUIROGA**  Chile
Mr. Fausto POCAR*  Italy
Mr. Julio PRADO VALLEJO**  Ecuador

                       

  *  Term expires on 31 December 1996.
    **  Term expires on 31 December 1998.


B.   Officers

  The  officers of the Committee,  elected for two-year terms  at the 1387th
and 1399th meetings, held on 20 and 28 March 1995, are as follows:

  Chairman:  Mr. Francisco Jose AGUILAR URBINA

  Vice-Chairmen:  Mr. Prafullachandra NATWARLAL BAGHWATI
            Mr. Tamas BAN
            Mr. Omran EL SHAFEI

  Rapporteur:  Ms. Christine CHANET
Annex III

SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW 1/


                                                                   Date   of
written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                     under
review, to States
                   Type of                               Date of       whose
reports have not yet
State party         report          Date due             submission         
been submitted

Afghanistan  Third   23 April 1994  Not yet  received  -Albania  Initial   3
January 1993  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Angola   Initial 2/  9 April 1993   Not yet received  -Armenia   Initial  22
September 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Australia  Third  12 November 1991  Not yet received  (6) 12 December 1994
        (7) 29 June 1995

Austria  Third  9 April 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Barbados  Third  11 April 1991  Not yet received  (8) 12 December 1994
        (9) 29 June 1995

Belarus  Fourth  4 November 1993   11 April 1995  -Belgium   Third  20  July
1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Benin  Initial  11 June 1993  Not yet received  (2) 29 June 1995

Bolivia  Second 3/  13 July 1990  Not yet received  (8) 29 June 1995

  Third  11 November 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Bosnia and  Initial  5 March 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995
Herzegovina

Brazil  Initial  23 April  1993  17 November 1994   -Bulgaria  Third 4/   31

December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Cambodia  Initial  25 August 1993  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994

Canada  Fourth  4 April 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Cape Verde  Initial  5 November 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Central  African   Second  5/   9 April  1989   Not  yet  received   (11) 12
December 1994
Republic        (12) 29 June 1995

  Third  7 August 1992  Not yet received  (5) 12 December 1994
        (6) 29 June 1995

Chile  Fourth  28 April 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Congo  Second  4 January 1990  Not yet received  (10) 12 December 1994
        (11) 29 June 1995

  Third  4 January 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995
                                                                   Date   of
written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                     under
review, to States
                   Type of                                Date of      whose
reports have not yet
State party         report           Date due            submission         
been submitted

Cote  d'Ivoire   Initial  25  June 1993  Not  yet received   (3) 12 December
1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Croatia  Initial  7 October 1992  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Cyprus  Third  18 August  1989  28  December 1994  -Czech Republic   Initial
31 December 1993  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Democratic   Second  13 December  1987  Not yet  received  (14) 12  December
1994
People's Republic        (15) 29 June 1995
of Korea
  Third  13 December 1992  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Denmark   Third   1 November  1990   7 April  1995   -Dominica  Initial   16
September 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Dominican  Fourth  3 April 1994  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994
Republic        (3) 29 June 1995

Ecuador  Fourth  4 November 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Egypt  Third 6/  31 December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

El Salvador   Third  7/   28 February  1991   -   -Equatorial   Initial   24
December 1988  Not yet received  (12) 12 December 1994
Guinea        (13) 29 June 1995

  Second  24 December 1993  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Estonia  Initial   20 January 1993   27 September  1994  -Ethiopia   Initial
10 September 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Finland  Fourth  18 August 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

France  Third  3 February 1992  Not yet received  (6) 12 December 1994

Gabon  Initial  20 April 1984  Not yet received  (21) 12 December 1994
        (22) 29 June 1995

  Second  20 April 1989  Not yet received  (11) 12 December 1994
        (12) 29 June 1995

  Third  20 April 1994  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Gambia  Second  21 June 1985  Not yet received  (20) 12 December 1994
        (21) 29 June 1995

  Third  21 June 1990  Not yet received  (9) 12 December 1994
        (10) 29 June 1995
                                                                   Date   of
written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                     under
review, to States
                   Type of                               Date of       whose
reports have not yet
State party         report          Date due             submission         
been submitted

Germany  Fourth  3 August 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Grenada  Initial  5 December 1992  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Guatemala   Initial  4  August 1993   7 December 1994   -Guinea   Third   31
December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Guyana  Second  10 April 1987  Not yet received  (16) 12 December 1994
        (17) 29 June 1995

  Third  10 April 1992  Not yet received  (6) 12 December 1994
        (7) 29 June 1995

Haiti   Initial 8/  5  May 1992  -   -Iceland   Third  31 December  1994  23
March 1995   -India   Third 9/   31  March 1992   Not  yet received   (6) 12
December 1994
        (7) 29 June 1995

Iran (Islamic  Third  10/  31 December 1994   Not yet received  (1) 29  June
1995
Republic of)

Iraq  Fourth  4  April 1995  Not yet received   -Israel  Initial   2 January
1993  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Jamaica  Second  1 August 1986  Not yet received  (16) 12 December 1994

        (15) 29 June 1995

  Third  1 August 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994
        (8) 29 June 1995

Kenya  Second  11 April 1986  Not yet received  (18) 12 December 1994
        (19) 29 June 1995

  Third  11 April 1991  Not yet received  (8) 12 December 1994
        (9) 29 June 1995

Latvia   Initial  13 April  1993  26  September 1994  -Lebanon   Second   21
March 1986  Not yet received  (19) 12 December 1994
        (20) 29 June 1995

  Third  21 March 1988  Not yet received  (14) 12 December 1994
        (15) 29 June 1995

  Fourth  21 March 1993  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Lesotho  Initial  8 December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Lithuania   Initial   19 February  1993  Not  yet received   (4) 12 December
1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Libyan Arab  Third 11/  4  February 1988  -  -  
Jamahiriya
                                                                   Date   of
written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                     under
review, to States
                   Type of                               Date of       whose
reports have not yet
State party         report           Date due            submission         
been submitted

Luxembourg  Third  17 November 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1994

Madagascar  Third 12/  31 July 1992  Not yet received  (5) 12 December 1994
        (6) 29 June 1995

  Fourth  3 August 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Malawi  Initial  21 March 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Mali  Second  11 April 1986  Not yet received  (18) 12 December 1994
        (19) 29 June 1995

  Third  11 April 1991  Not yet received  (8) 12 December 1994
        (9) 29 June 1995

Mauritius  Third   18 July 1990  2 June 1995  -  Fourth   4 November 1993  -
-Mongolia  Fourth  4 April 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Mozambique  Initial   20 October 1994    Not yet  received  (1)  12 December
1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Netherlands   Third   31 October 1991    6 February 1995   -Nicaragua  Third
11 June 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994
        (8) 29 June 1995

Niger  Second 1_?h_1R2D/ 31 March 1994 Not yetreceived  (2) 12December 1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Nigeria  Initial  28 October 1994   Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Panama  Third 14/  31 March 1992  Not yet received  (6) 12 December 1994
        (7) 29 June 1995

  Fourth  6 June 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Peru   Third   9 April  1993   24 October  1994   -Philippines   Second   22
January 1993  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Poland  Fourth  27 October 1994   Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

Portugal  Third  1 August 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994

Republic of  Initial  25 April 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
Moldova        (2) 29 June 1995

Romania  Fourth  31 December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Russian  Fourth  4 November 1993  27 September 1994  -Federation

Rwanda 2/  Third  10 April 1992  Not yet received   -                       
                                          Date of written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                   
_1_?h_1R2D States
                   Type of                               Date  of      whose
reports have not yet
State party          report          Date due            submission         
been submitted

Saint  Vincent and  Second 15/  31  October 1991   Not yet  received  (7) 12
December  1994
the Grenadines        (8) 29 June 1995

  Third  8 February 1993  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

San Marino  Second  17 January 1992  Not yet received  (6) 12 December 1994
        (7) 29 June 1995

Senegal  Fourth  4 April 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Seychelles  Initial  4 August 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Slovakia  Initial  31 December 1993  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

Slovenia  Initial   24 June  1992   1 October  1993  -Somalia   Initial   23
April 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994
        (8) 29 June 1995

Sudan  Second  17 June 1992  Not yet received  (4) 12 December 1994
        (5) 29 June 1995

Suriname  Second  2 August 1985  Not yet received  (19) 12 December 1994
        (20) 29 June 1995

  Third  2 August 1990  Not yet received  (9) 12 December 1994
        (10) 29 June 1995

Sweden   Fourth   5 December  1994 1R2Der  1994   -Switzerland   Initial  17
September 1993  24 February 1995  -Syrian  Arab  Second  18 August 1984  Not
yet received  (22) 12 December 1994
Republic        (23) 29 June 1995

  Third  18 August 1989  Not yet received  (11) 12 December 1994
        (12) 29 June 1995

  Fourth  18 August 1994  Not yet received  (1) 12 December 1994
        (2) 29 June 1995

The former  Initial  6 September 1992   Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995
Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia

Trinidad and  Third  20 March 1990  Not yet received  (10) 12 December 1994
Tobago        (11) 29 June 1995

  Fourth  20 March 1995  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

United Kingdom of  Fourth  19 May 1994  14 October 1994  -of Great Britain
Northern Ireland

United  Republic   Third 16/   31 December 1993   Not  yet received   (2) 12
December 1994
of Tanzania        (3) 29 June 1995

Uruguay  Fourth  31 December 1994  Not yet received  (1) 29 June 1995

                                                                   Date   of
written reminder(s)
                                                                     sent,
during the period
                                                                     under
review, to States
                   Type of                               Date of       whose
reports have not yet_1_?h_1R2Dty         report          Date  due          
submission          been submitted

Venezuela   Third 17/   31 December 1993  Not  yet received  (2) 12 December
1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Viet Nam  Second 18/  31 July 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994
        (8) 29 June 1995

  Third  23 December 1993  Not yet received  (2) 12 December 1994
        (3) 29 June 1995

Yugoslavia  Fourth  3 August 1993  Not yet received  (3) 12 December 1994
        (4) 29 June 1995

Zaire  Third 19/  31 July 1991  Not yet received  (7) 12 December 1994
        (8) 29 June 1995

Zambia  Second  9 July  1990  27 January 1995  -Zimbabwe  Initial  12 August
1992  Not yet received  (5) 12 December 1994
        (6) 29 June 1995


Notes

  1/  From 1 August 1994 to 29 July 1995 (end of the fifty-fourth session).

  2/   Notes verbales  have been  sent to  Angola and Rwanda  on 12 December
1994 and  23 June  1995, as  reminders  t_1_?h_1R2Dal report  pursuant to  a
special decision taken by the Committee.

  3/   At its thirty-sixth session (914th meeting), the Committee decided to
extend  the deadline  for the  submission of  the second periodic  report of
Bolivia from 11 November 1988 to 13 July 1990.

  4/   At its forty-eighth session  (1258th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission  of the third periodic report  of
Bulgaria from 28 April 1989 to 31 December 1994.

  5/   At its thirty-second session  (794th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission of the second periodic report  of
the Central African Republic from 7 August 1987 to 9 April 1989.

  6/   At its forty-eighth session  (1258th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission of  the third periodic  report of
Egypt from 13 April 1993 to 31 December 1994.

  7/   Pursuant to a decision taken by the Committee at its fiftieth session
(1319th meeting),  the new  date for  the submission of  the third  periodic
report of El Salvador is 31 December 1995.

  8/   Pursuant to  a decision  taken by  the Committee  at its  fifty-third
session (1415th  meeting), the new  date for the  submission of the  initial
report of Haiti is 31 December 1996.

   9/   At its forty-first session  (1062nd meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission of  the third periodic  report of
India from 9 July 1990 to 31 March 1992.

  10/  At its forty-eighth session  (1258th meeting), the Committee  decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission  of the third periodic report  of
the Islamic Republic of Iran from 21 March 1988 to 31 December 1994.

  11/  Pursuant to a dec_1_?h_1R2Dhe  Committee at its fifty-second  session
(1386th  meeting), the  new date  for the submission  of the  third periodic
report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is 31 December 1995.

  12/   At its forty-third session  (1112th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission of  the third periodic  report of
Madagascar from 3 August 1988 to 31 July 1992.

  13/  At its forty-seventh session  (1215th meeting), the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission of  the second periodic report of
Niger from 6 June 1992 to 31 March 1994.

  14/   At its forty-first session  (1062nd meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the  deadline for the submission of  the third periodic report  of
Panama from 6 June 1988 to 31 March 1992.

  15/  At its thirty-eighth session  (973rd meeting), the Committee  decided
to extend the deadline for the submission of  the second periodic report  of
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines from 8 February 1988 to 31 October 1991.

  16/   At its forty-sixth session  (1205th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the deadline  for the submission  of the third periodic report  of
the United Republic of Tanzania from 11 April 1991 to 31 December 1993.

  17/   At its forty-sixth session  (1205th meeting),  the Committee decided
to extend the  deadline for the submission of  the third periodic report  of
Venezuela from 1 November 1991 to 31 December 1993.

  18/  At its thirty-ninth session  (1003rd meeting), the Committee  decided
to extend the deadline for the submission of  the second periodic report  of

Viet Nam from 23 December 1988 to 31 July 1991.

  19/  At its thirty-ninth session  (1003rd meeting), the Committee  decided
to  extend the  deadline for  the submission  of the  third periodic  report
_1_?h_1R2D January 1988 to 31 July 1991.


--Annex IV

STATUS OF REPORTS CONSIDERED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW
AND OF REPORTS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE


State party
Date due
Date of submission
Meetings at
which considered
A.  Initial reportsBrazil
23 April 1993
17 November 1994
Not yet consideredEstonia
1R2Duary 1993
27 September 1994
Not yet consideredGuatemala
4 August 1993
7 December 1994
Not yet consideredLatvia
13 April 1993
26 September 1994
1421st, 1422nd and 1425th (fifty-fourth session)Nepal
13 August 1992
30 March 1994
1359th and 1363rd (fifty-second session)Paraguay
9 September 1993
1 February 1994
1392nd and 1396th (fifty-third session)Switzerland
17 September 1993
24 February 1995
Not yet consideredUnited States of America
7 September 1993
29 July 1994
1401st, 1402nd, 1405th and  1406th (fifty-third session)B.   Second periodic
reportsAfghanistan
23 April 1989
23 March 1992
Not yet consideredArgentina
7 November 1992
7 January 1994
1389th-1391st (fifty-third session)Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
4 February 1983
4 February 1993
1376th-1377th 1/ (fifty-second session)Yemen
8 May 1993
10 May 1993
1403rd and 1404th (fifty-third session)Zambia
9 July 1990
1R2Dry 1995
Not yet considered
C.  Third periodic reportsCyprus
18 August 1989
28 December 1994
Not yet consideredDenmark
1 November 1990
7 April 1995
Not yet consideredIceland

30 October 1992
23 March 1995
Not yet consideredMauritius
18 July 1990
2 June 1995
Not yet consideredMorocco
31 December 1992
20 July 1993
1364th-1366th (fifty-second session)Netherlands
31 October 1991
6 February 1995
Not yet consideredNew Zealand
27 March 1990
1 April 1994
1393rd-1395th (fifty-third session)Peru
9 April 1993
24 October 1994
Not yet consideredSri Lanka
10 September 1991
18 July 1994
1436th-1438th (fifty-fourth session)D.  Fourth periodic reportsBelarus
4 November 1993
11 April 1995
Not yet consideredRussian Federation
4 November 1994
27 September 1994
1426th_1_?h_1R2Dourth session)Spain
28 April 1994
2 June 1994
Not yet consideredSweden
5 December 1994
27 October 1994
Not yet consideredTunisia
4 February 1993
23 March 1993
1360th-1363rd (fifty-second session)Ukraine
18 August 1994
13 July 1994
1418th-1420th  (fifty-fourth  session)United Kingdom  of  Great Britain  and
Northern Ireland
19 May 1994
14 October 1994
1432nd-1434th (fifty-fourth session)
          E.  Reports submitted pursuant to a special decision taken
              by the CommitteeBurundi 2/
-12 July 1994
1349th and 1350th (fifty-second session)Haiti 3/
-28 February 1995
Not yet considered
            F.  Additional information submitted subsequent to the
                examination of initial reports by the Committee 4/Gambia
-5 June 1984
Not yet consideredKenya
-4 May 1982
Not yet considered

 Notes

  1/  The  Committee concluded the consideration_1_?h_1R2Df the Libyan  Arab
Jamahiriya,  which   was  initiated  at   the  forty-ninth  session  of  the
Committee, at  its fifty-second session, held  at the  United Nations Office
at Geneva from 17 October to 4 November 1994.

  2/   Special  decision  adopted  by  the  Committee  on  27  October  1994
(fiftysecond session).

  3/    Special  decision  adopted  by  the  Committee on  27  October  1994
(fiftysecond session).

  4/  At its twenty-fifth session (601st meeting), the Committee decided  to
consider additional information  submitted subsequent to the examination  of
initial reports together with the State party's second periodic report.
--Annex V

GENERAL COMMENTS ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL_1_?h_1R2DIGHTS 1/


General Comment No. 24 (52) 2/ and 3/

          General comment on issues relating to reservations made upon
          ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional
          Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under
article 41 of the Covenant

  As of  1 November 1994, 46 of the 127 States  parties to the International
Covenant on  Civil  and Political  Rights  had,  between them,  entered  150
reservations of varying significance to their acceptance  of the obligations
of the  Covenant.  Some of  these reservations exclude  the duty to  provide
and guarantee  particular rights  in the  Covenant.   Others are  couched in
more general terms, often directed to  ensuring the continued paramountcy of
certain  domestic  legal provisions.    Still  others  are  directed at  the
competence of the Committee. The number  of reservations, their content  and
their scope may undermine the effective  implementation of the Covenant  and
tend  to weaken  respect  for the  obligations of  States  parties.   It  is
important for  States parties  to know  exactly what  obligations they,  and
other States parties, have  in fact undertaken.   And the Committee, in  the
performance of its duties  under either article 40 of the Covenant or  under
the Optional Protocols, must know whether a State  is bound by a  particular
obligation or  to what  extent.   This will  require a  determination as  to
whether a  unilateral  statement  is  a  reservation  or  an  interpretative
declaration and a determination of its acceptability and effects.

  For these  reasons the  Committee has  deemed it  useful to  address in  a
General Comment  the issues  of international  law and  human rights  policy
that arise.  The General Comment  identifies the principles of international
law that  apply to  the making  of reservations  and by  reference to  which
their acceptability is  to be tested  and their purport  to be  interpreted.
It   addresses   the  role   of   States   parties   in   relation  to   the
reservati_1_?h_1R2DIt further addresses the role of  the Committee itself in
relation to  reservations. And it makes  certain recommendations to  present
States parties for a  reviewing of reservations and to those States that are
not yet  parties about legal  and human rights  policy considerations  to be
borne  in mind should  they consider  ratifying or  acceding with particular
reservations.

  It is not always easy to distinguish a  reservation from a declaration  as
to a State's understanding  of the interpretation of  a provision, or from a
statement  of policy.   Regard will  be had  to the intention  of the State,
rather than  the form of  the instrument.   If a  statement, irrespective of
its  name or  title, purports  to exclude  or modify  the legal effect  of a
treaty  in its application  to the  State, it constitutes  a reservation. 4/
Conversely, if a socalled reservation  merely offers a State's understanding
of a  provision  but  does  not exclude  or  modify  that provision  in  its
application to that State, it is, in reality, not a reservation.

  The  possibility  of entering  reservations  may  encourage  States  which
consider that they have difficulties  in guaranteeing all the  rights in the
Covenant  none the  less to  accept the  generality  of obligations  in that
instrument.   Reservations may serve  a useful function to  enable States to
adapt specific elements in their laws to the inherent rights of each  person
as articulated in the Covenant.  However, it  is desirable in principle that

States accept the full  range of obligations, because the human rights norms
are  the legal  expression of  the  essential  rights that  every person  is
entitled to as a human being.

  The  Covenant neither  prohibits reservations  nor  mentions any  type  of
permitted reservation.   The same  is true of  the first Optional  Protocol.
The Second Optional Protocol provides,  in article 2, paragraph  1, that "No
reservation is admissible to the present  Protocol, except for a reservation
made at  the time of ratification  or ac_1_?h_1R2Dvides  for the application
of  the death penalty  in time  of war pursuant  to a conviction  for a most
serious crime  of a military nature committed during wartime".  Paragraphs 2
and 3 provide for certain procedural obligations.

  The absence  of  a prohibition  on reservations  does  not  mean that  any
reservation  is permitted.   The matter  of reservations  under the Covenant
and  the first Optional Protocol  is governed by international law.  Article
19 (3)  of the Vienna Convention  on the Law  of Treaties provides  relevant
guidance. 5/   It  stipulates that where a reservation is not prohibited  by
the treaty or falls within the specified  permitted categories, a State  may
make  a reservation  provided it  is not  incompatible with  the  object and
purpose  of  the treaty.    Even  though, unlike  some  other  human  rights
treaties, the  Covenant does  not incorporate  a specific  reference to  the
object and purpose test,  that test governs the matter of interpretation and
acceptability of reservations.

  In an instrument which articulates very  many civil and political  rights,
each  of  the  many  articles,  and  indeed  their  interplay,  secures  the
objectives  of the Covenant.  The  object and purpose of the  Covenant is to
create legally binding standards for human  rights by defining certain civil
and political rights  and placing them in  a framework of  obligations which
are  legally  binding for  those  States which  ratify;  and  to  provide an
efficacious supervisory machinery for the obligations undertaken.

  Reservations that  offend peremptory  norms would  not be  compatible with
the object  and purpose of the  Covenant.  Although  treaties that are  mere
exchanges  of obligations  between States  allow  them  to reserve  inter se
application of rules of general international law, it is otherwise in  human
rights  treaties,  which  are  for  the  benefit  of  persons  within  their
jurisdiction.    Accordingly, provisions  in  the  Covenant  that  represent
customary   international  law   (and  a   fortiori  when   they   have  the
c_1_?h_1R2Dmptory  norms)   may  not   be  the   subject  of   reservations.
Accordingly, a State  may not reserve  the right  to engage  in slavery,  to
torture, to  subject persons  to cruel,  inhuman or  degrading treatment  or
punishment, to arbitrarily  deprive persons of  their lives,  to arbitrarily
arrest and  detain  persons, to  deny  freedom  of thought,  conscience  and
religion, to  presume a  person guilty  unless he  proves his  innocence, to
execute pregnant  women or  children, to  permit the  advocacy of  national,
racial  or religious  hatred, to  deny to  persons of  marriageable age  the
right  to marry,  or to  deny to  minorities the  right to  enjoy their  own
culture, profess their own  religion, or use their own language.  And  while
reservations to  particular  clauses of  article  14  may be  acceptable,  a
general reservation to the right to a fair trial would not be.

  Applying more generally the  object and purpose test to the Covenant,  the
Committee notes that, for example, reservation  to article 1 denying peoples
the  right to  determine  their  own political  status and  to  pursue their
economic, social  and cultural development,  would be  incompatible with the
object and  purpose  of  the  Covenant.    Equally,  a  reservation  to  the
obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Covenant,  and
to  do  so  on  a  non-discriminatory  basis  (art.  2  (1))  would  not  be
acceptable.   Nor  may  a  State reserve  an  entitlement  not to  take  the
necessary steps at  the domestic level to give  effect to the rights of  the
Covenant (art. 2 (2)).

  The Committee has  further examined whether categories of reservations may
offend  the  "object  and  purpose"  test.   In  particular,  it  falls  for

consideration  as to whether reservations to the non-derogable provisions of
the Covenant are compatible with its object and purpose.  While  there is no
hierarchy  of importance  of rights  under  the  Covenant, the  operation of
certain rights may  not be suspended, even  in times of national  emergency.
This underlines the great importance of_1_?h_1R2Dights.   But not all rights
of profound importance, such as  articles 9 and 27 of  the Covenant, have in
fact been made non-derogable. One  reason for certain rights being made non-
derogable  is  because their  suspension  is  irrelevant  to the  legitimate
control  of the state  of national  emergency (for  example, no imprisonment
for debt,  in art. 11).   Another reason  is that derogation  may indeed  be
impossible (as,  for example,  freedom of  conscience).  At  the same  time,
some provisions are non-derogable exactly  because without them  there would
be no  rule of  law.  A reservation  to the provisions of  article 4 itself,
which precisely  stipulates the balance to  be struck  between the interests
of the State  and the rights of the individual in times  of emergency, would
fall in this category.   And some  non-derogable rights, which in any  event
cannot be reserved because of their status as peremptory norms, are also  of
this  character - the  prohibition of  torture and  arbitrary deprivation of
life  are examples.  6/   While there  is  no automatic  correlation between
reservations  to  non-derogable  provisions  and reservations  which  offend
against the object and purpose of  the Covenant, a State has a heavy onus to
justify such a reservation.

  The Covenant  does not  merely establish  specific rights; it  accompanies
them with  important supportive  guarantees.   These guarantees  provide the
necessary framework  for securing the  rights in the  Covenant and are  thus
essential to  its object and  purpose.  Some  operate at  the national level
and some at  the international level.  Reservations designed to remove these
guarantees  are thus  not  acceptable.   Thus,  a  State could  not  make  a
reservation to article 2, paragraph 3, of  the Covenant, indicating that  it
intends to  provide no  remedies for  human rights  violations.   Guarantees
such as these  are an  integral part  of the structure  of the Covenant  and
underpin  its  efficacy.    The  Covenant  also  envisages,  for  the better
attainment  of   its  stated   objectives,   a  monitoring   role  for   the
C_1_?h_1R2Dvations that  purport  to evade  that  essential  element in  the
design of the Covenant, which is also directed  to securing the enjoyment of
the rights, are also  incompatible with its object and purpose.  A State may
not reserve the right  not to present a report and have it considered by the
Committee.  The Committee's role under  the Covenant, whether under  article
40 or  under the Optional  Protocols, necessarily  entails interpreting  the
provisions  of  the  Covenant  and  the  development  of  a   jurisprudence.
Accordingly,  a  reservation that  rejects  the  Committee's  competence  to
interpret the requirements of  any provisions of the Covenant would also  be
contrary to the object and purpose of that treaty.

  The intention of the Covenant is  that the rights contained therein should
be ensured  to all  those under a State  party's jurisdiction.  To  this end
certain attendant  requirements are likely to  be necessary.   Domestic laws
may  need  to  be  altered properly  to  reflect  the  requirements  of  the
Covenant; and mechanisms at  the domestic level will be needed to allow  the
Covenant  rights to be enforceable  at the local  level.  Reservations often
reveal a tendency of  States not  to want to change  a particular law.   And
sometimes that  tendency is elevated  to a  general policy.   Of  particular
concern   are  widely  formulated  reservations   which  essentially  render
ineffective all Covenant rights which would  require any change in  national
law.  No real  international rights or obligations  have thus been accepted.
And when there is  an absence of provisions  to ensure that  Covenant rights
may be  sued  on  in  domestic courts,  and,  further,  a failure  to  allow
individual  complaints  to be  brought  to  the  Committee  under the  first
Optional Protocol,  all the  essential elements  of the Covenant  guarantees
have been removed.

  The issue  arises as  to whether  reservations are  permissible under  the
first  Optional Protocol and, if  so, whether any such  reservation might be
contrary to  the  object and  purpo_1_?h_1R2Dnt  or  of the  first  Optional
Protocol itself. It is clear that the first  Optional Protocol is itself  an

international treaty, distinct from the Covenant  but closely related to it.
Its object and  purpose is to recognize the  competence of the Committee  to
receive  and  consider  communications  from  individuals  who  claim  to be
victims of  a violation  by  a State  party  of  any of  the rights  in  the
Covenant.  States accept the substantive  rights of individuals by reference
to the Covenant, and not  the first Optional Protocol.   The function of the
first Optional Protocol is to allow claims in respect of  those rights to be
tested before  the Committee.  Accordingly,  a reservation  to an obligation
of a State to  respect and ensure  a right  contained in the Covenant,  made
under the first Optional  Protocol when it  has not previously been made  in
respect of the same  rights under the Covenant, does not affect the  State's
duty  to comply with  its substantive  obligation.  A  reservation cannot be
made to the Covenant  through the vehicle of  the Optional Protocol but such
a reservation would operate to ensure that the  State's compliance with that
obligation  may not  be tested  by the  Committee under  the first  Optional
Protocol.    And  because the  object  and  purpose of  the  first  Optional
Protocol is to  allow the rights obligatory for  a State under the  Covenant
to  be tested  before the  Committee, a  reservation that  seeks to preclude
this would  be contrary  to the  object and  purpose of  the first  Optional
Protocol, even  if not  of the  Covenant.   A reservation  to a  substantive
obligation made for the  first time under the first Optional Protocol  would
seem  to  reflect  an  intention  by the  State  concerned  to  prevent  the
Committee from expressing its  views relating to a particular article of the
Covenant in an individual case.

   The  Committee  considers that  reservations  relating  to  the  required
procedures under  the first Optional Protocol  would not  be compatible with
its  object  and  purpose.    The  Committee  must  cont_1_?h_1R2Dedures  as
specified   by  the   Optional   Protocol  and   its  rules   of  procedure.
Reservations  have,  however,  purported  to  limit  the  competence  of the
Committee to acts and  events occurring after entry into force for the State
concerned of  the first  Optional Protocol.   In the view  of the  Committee
this is  not a  reservation but, most  usually, a statement  consistent with
its  normal competence ratione  temporis.   At the same  time, the Committee
has insisted  upon its competence, even  in the face  of such statements  or
observations, when events or  acts occurring before the  date of entry  into
force  of the first  Optional Protocol  have continued to have  an effect on
the rights  of a  victim subsequent to  that date.   Reservations have  been
entered which effectively add an  additional ground of inadmissibility under
article 5,  paragraph 2, by precluding  examination of  a communication when
the same matter has already been  examined by another comparable  procedure.
In so far  as the most basic obligation has been to secure independent third
party review of  the human rights of  individuals, the Committee has,  where
the legal  right and the subject-matter are identical under the Covenant and
under another  international instrument,  viewed such a  reservation as  not
violating the object and purpose of the first Optional Protocol.

   The primary  purpose of  the Second Optional  Protocol is  to extend  the
scope of the substantive obligations undertaken  under the Covenant, as they
relate to the  right to  life, by prohibiting  execution and abolishing  the
death penalty.  7/ It has its  own provision  concerning reservations, which
is  determinative of what  is permitted.   Article 2,  paragraph 1, provides
that  only  one  category  of  reservation  is  permitted,  namely  one that
reserves the right  to apply the death penalty in time of war  pursuant to a
conviction for  a most serious  crime of a military  nature committed during
wartime.   Two  procedural  obligations are  incumbent upon  States  parties
wishi_1_?h_1R2Dselves  of  such  a  reservation.  Article  2,  paragraph  1,
obliges such a State  to communicate to the  Secretary-General, at the  time
of  ratification or  accession,  the  relevant provisions  of  its  national
legislation applicable  during wartime.   This  is clearly directed  towards
the objectives  of  specificity  and transparency  and in  the  view of  the
Committee  a purported  reservation  unaccompanied by  such  information  is
without legal effect.  Article 2, paragraph 3,  requires a State making such
a reservation to notify the Secretary-General of any beginning  or ending of
a state of war applicable  to its territory.  In the view of the  Committee,
no  State may  seek  to avail  itself  of  its  reservation (that  is,  have

execution  in time of  war regarded  as lawful) unless it  has complied with
the procedural requirement of article 2, paragraph 3.

  The  Committee finds  it important  to address  which body  has the  legal
authority to  make determinations  as to whether  specific reservations  are
compatible  with  the   object  and  purpose  of   the  Covenant.    As  for
international  treaties in general,  the International  Court of Justice has
indicated in the Reservations to the Genocide  Convention Case (1951) that a
State which  objected to  a reservation  on the  grounds of  incompatibility
with the  object and purpose  of a treaty  could, through objecting,  regard
the treaty  as not  in effect  as between  itself and  the reserving  State.
Article 20,  paragraph 4, of  the Vienna Convention  on the  Law of Treaties
1969 contains provisions most relevant to  the present case on acceptance of
and objection  to reservations.   This  provides for  the  possibility of  a
State to  object to a  reservation made by  another State.  Article 21 deals
with  the  legal effects  of objections  by States  to reservations  made by
other  States.   Essentially,  a  reservation  precludes  the operation,  as
between  the reserving and other  States, of the  provision reserved; and an
objection  thereto leads to  the reservation  being in  operation as between
the  reserving  and  objectin_1_?h_1R2Dthe  extent  that  it  has  not  been
objected to.

  As indicated  above, it is the  Vienna Convention on  the Law of  Treaties
that  provides the definition  of reservations  and also  the application of
the object  and purpose test  in the absence  of other  specific provisions.
But  the  Committee believes  that  its  provisions on  the  role  of  State
objections  in relation  to reservations  are inappropriate  to address  the
problem of reservations  to human rights  treaties.  Such treaties,  and the
Covenant specifically,  are not  a web  of inter-State  exchanges of  mutual
obligations.  They  concern the endowment of  individuals with rights.   The
principle  of inter-State  reciprocity has  no  place,  save perhaps  in the
limited  context  of   reservations  to  declarations  on  the   Committee's
competence under  article  41.   And because  the operation  of the  classic
rules on reservations is  so inadequate for the  Covenant, States have often
not seen any  legal interest  in or  need to  object to  reservations.   The
absence of  protest by  States cannot  imply that  a  reservation is  either
compatible or  incompatible with  the object  and purpose  of the  Covenant.
Objections have been occasional, made by some States but not others, and  on
grounds not always specified; when an objection is  made, it often does  not
specify a legal consequence, or sometimes  even indicates that the objecting
party  none the  less does  not  regard the  Covenant as  not  in  effect as
between the parties  concerned.  In short, the pattern is so unclear that it
is not safe to  assume that a  non-objecting State thinks that a  particular
reservation is  acceptable.  In the  view of the  Committee, because of  the
special characteristics  of the  Covenant as  a human  rights treaty, it  is
open to  question  what effect  objections  have  between States  inter  se.
However, an  objection to  a reservation  made by  States  may provide  some
guidance to  the Committee  in its  interpretation as  to its  compatibility
with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

  It_1_?h_1R2Dls  to   the  Committee  to   determine  whether  a   specific
reservation  is compatible  with the  object  and  purpose of  the Covenant.
This is  in part because, as  indicated above, it  is an inappropriate  task
for  States parties  in  relation to  human  rights treaties,  and  in  part
because it is  a task that the Committee  cannot avoid in the performance of
its functions.  In order to  know the scope of its duty to examine a State's
compliance under  article 40  or a  communication under  the first  Optional
Protocol, the Committee has necessarily to take a  view on the compatibility
of  a reservation  with the  object and  purpose of  the Covenant  and  with
general  international law.   Because  of the special  character of  a human
rights treaty,  the  compatibility of  a  reservation  with the  object  and
purpose  of the Covenant  must be  established objectively,  by reference to
legal principles, and the Committee is  particularly well placed to  perform
this task.   The normal consequence  of an unacceptable  reservation is  not
that  the  Covenant will  not be  in effect  at all  for a  reserving party.
Rather, such  a reservation will  generally be severable, in  the sense that

the Covenant will be  operative for the  reserving party without benefit  of
the reservation.

  Reservations  must be  specific and  transparent, so  that  the Committee,
those  living  in the  territory of  the  reserving State  and other  States
parties may be clear as to what obligations  of human rights compliance have
or have  not been  undertaken.   Reservations may  thus not be  general, but
must refer  to  a particular  provision  of  the  Covenant and  indicate  in
precise  terms  its  scope  in  relation  thereto.    When  considering  the
compatibility of  possible reservations with the  object and  purpose of the
Covenant, States should also take into  consideration the overall effect  of
a group of reservations,  as well as the effect  of each reservation  on the
integrity  of  the  Covenant,  which  remains  an  essential  consideration.
States  should   not  enter   so  many   reservations  that   they  are   in
eff_1_?h_1R2Dlimited  number  of  human  rights  obligations,  and  not  the
Covenant  as such.   So  that reservations do  not lead to  a perpetual non-
attainment of international human rights standards, reservations should  not
systematically reduce  the obligations  undertaken only  to those  presently
existing  in  less  demanding  standards  of   domestic  law.    Nor  should
interpretative declarations  or reservations  seek to  remove an  autonomous
meaning to Covenant obligations, by pronouncing them to be identical, or  to
be accepted only in  so far as they  are identical, with existing provisions
of  domestic  law.    States  should   not  seek  through  reservations   or
interpretative declarations to determine that the  meaning of a provision of
the  Covenant  is  the  same  as  that  given  by  an  organ  of  any  other
international treaty body.

  States should institute procedures to ensure  that each and every proposed
reservation is compatible with  the object and purpose of the Covenant.   It
is  desirable for  a State  entering a  reservation  to indicate  in precise
terms  the  domestic  legislation  or  practices  which  it  believes  to be
incompatible with the Covenant obligation reserved;  and to explain the time
period it requires to render its own laws  and practices compatible with the
Covenant,  or  why  it  is  unable  to render  its  own  laws  and practices
compatible with the Covenant. States should  also ensure that the  necessity
for maintaining reservations  is periodically reviewed, taking into  account
any  observations   and  recommendations  made   by  the  Committee   during
examination  of  their  reports.  Reservations should  be  withdrawn  at the
earliest  possible  moment.    Reports   to  the  Committee  should  contain
information on what action has  been taken to review, reconsider or withdraw
reservations.


Notes

  1/   For the  nature and  purpose of  the general  comments, see  Official
Records  of the  General Assembly,  Thirty-sixth Session,  Supplement No. 40
(A/36/40),  annex VII,  introduc_1_?h_1R2Dcription  of the  history  of  the
method  of  work, the  elaboration of  general comments  and their  use, see
ibid., Thirty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 40  (A/39/40 and Corr.1 and  2),
paras. 541-557.   For the  text of the  general comments  already adopted by
the  Committee,   see  ibid.,  Thirty-sixth   Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/36/40),  annex VII;  ibid.,  Thirty-seventh Session,  Supplement  No.  40
(A/37/40),  annex  V;  ibid.,  Thirty-eighth  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/38/40),  annex  VI;  ibid.,  Thirty-ninth  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/39/40 and  Corr.1 and 2), annex  VI; ibid.,  Fortieth Session, Supplement
No.  40 (A/40/40), annex  VI; ibid.,  Fortyfirst Session,  Supplement No. 40
(A/41/40),  annex  VI;   ibid.,  Forty-third  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/43/40),  annex  VI;  ibid.,  Forty-fourth  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/44/40),  annex  VI;   ibid.,  Forty-fifth  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/45/40),  annex  VI;  ibid.,  Forty-seventh  Session,  Supplement  No.  40
(A/47/40),  annex  VI;  ibid.,  Forty-eighth  Session,  Supplement  No.   40
(A/48/40), annex VI;  ibid., Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40  (A/50/40),
annex    V.       Also    issued   in    documents    HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1    and
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5.

  2/    Adopted  by  the  Committee  at  its  1382nd  meeting  (fifty-second
session), on 2 November 1994.

  3/  The number  in parentheses indicates the  session at which the general
comment was adopted.

  4/  Article 2 (1) (d), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.

  5/  Although the  Vienna Convention on the  Law of Treaties  was concluded
in  1969 and entered into force in 1980 - i.e. after the entry into force of
the Covenant  -  its terms  reflect the  general international  law on  this
matter as had already  been affirmed by  the International Court of  Justice
in The Reservations to the Genocide Convention Case of 1951. 

1R2D   Reservations have been entered  to both article 6 and  article 7, but
not  in terms  which reserve  a right to  torture or to  engage in arbitrary
deprivation of life.

  7/    The  competence  of  the  Committee  in  respect  of  this  extended
obligation is provided for under  article 5 - which itself  is subject to  a
form of reservation  in that the automatic  granting of this competence  may
be  reserved through the  mechanism of  a statement made to  the contrary at
the moment of ratification or accession.
--Annex VI

OBSERVATIONS OF STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 5,
OF THE COVENANT1R2Dent annex is being  published as received, without formal
editing.


         Observations on General Comment No. 24 (52), on issues relating
         to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the
         Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to
 declarations under article 41 of the Covenant

A.  United States of America 1/

  There  can be no  serious question about the  propriety of the Committee's
concern about the possible effect of  excessively broad reservations on  the
general protection  and promotion of the  rights reflected  in the Covenant,
nor any reasonable doubt regarding the general desirability of  reservations
that are  specific,  transparent  and subject  to  review  with  an  eye  to
withdrawal where  appropriate.  General Comment  24, however,  appears to go
much  too far.   The  United States  would therefore  like to  set forth  in
summary fashion a number of observations  concerning the General Comment  as
follows.


1.  Role of the Committee

  The last sentence of paragraph  11 states that "a reservation that rejects
the Committee's competence to  interpret the requirements  of any provisions
of the Covenant  would also be  contrary to  the object and purpose  of that
treaty".

  This statement  can be  read to  present the  rather surprising  assertion
that it is contrary to the object and purpose of  the Covenant not to accept
the Committee's views on  the interpretation of the Covenant.  This would be
a rather  significant departure  from the  Covenant scheme,  which does  not
impose  on States  Parties an obligation  to give effect  to the Committee's
interpretations or  confer on the Committee  the power  to render definitive
or  binding interpretations of the  Covenant.  The  drafters of the Covenant
could have given the  Committee this role but  deliberately chose not  to do
so.

  In this  respect, it  is unnecessary  for  a State  to reserve  as to  the

Committee's  power  or   interpretiv_1_?h_1R2Dce  the  Committee  lacks  the
authority to  render  binding  interpretations or  judgements.   The  quoted
sentence can, however, be  read more naturally and  narrowly in the  context
of the paragraph as a whole, to assert  simply that a reservation may not be
taken  to the reporting requirement.  This narrower view would be consistent
with the clear intention of the Convention.

  In  this regard, the  analysis in  paragraphs 16-20,  regarding which body
has   the   legal  authority   to   make   determinations   concerning   the
permissibility  of specific reservations,  is of considerable concern.  Here
the Committee appears to reject the  established rules of interpretation  of
treaties as set forth  in the Vienna Convention on  the Law of  Treaties and
in customary  international law. The  General Comment  states, for  example,
that the established provisions of the Vienna Convention are  "inappropriate
to address the problem of reservations to human  rights treaties ... [as  to
which]  [t]he  principle  of  inter-State  reciprocity  has  no place,  save
perhaps in  the  limited context  of  reservations  to declarations  on  the
Committee's competence under article 41".

  Moreover,  the  Committee   appears  to  dispense  with  the   established
procedures for determining the permissibility  of reservations and to divest
States Parties  of  any role  in determining  the meaning  of the  Covenant,
which  they  drafted  and   joined,  and  of  the  extent  of  their  treaty
obligations.   In its  view, objections  from other  States Parties  may not
"specify  a legal consequence"  and States  with genuine  objections may not
always  voice them, so  that "it is not safe  to assume that a non-objecting
State thinks  that a  particular reservation  is acceptable".  Consequently,
because  "the  operation  of  the  classic   rules  on  reservations  is  so
inadequate for the Covenant, ...  [i]t necessarily falls to the Committee to
determine whether a specific reservation is  compatible with the object  and
purpose of the Covenant".

  The Committee's  position, g,  runs contrary  to the  Covenant scheme  and
international law.


2.  Acceptability of reservations:  governing legal principles

  The  question  of   the  status  of  the  Committee's  views  is  of  some
significant in  light  of the  apparent  lines  of analysis  concerning  the
permissibility of reservations in paragraphs 8-9.  Those paragraphs  reflect
the view  that reservations offending  peremptory norms of international law
would not be compatible  with the object  and purposes of the Covenant,  nor
may reservations be taken to Covenant  provisions which represent  customary
international law.

  It is  clear that a  State cannot exempt itself from  a peremptory norm of
international law by making  a reservation to  the Covenant.   It is not  at
all clear that a State cannot choose to exclude one means of enforcement  of
particular norms  by  reserving against  inclusion  of  those norms  in  its
Covenant obligations.

  The  proposition  that  any  reservation  which   contravenes  a  norm  of
customary  international law  is per  se  incompatible  with the  object and
purpose  of   this  or  any  other  convention,  however,  is  a  much  more
significant  and sweeping  premise. It  is, moreover,  wholly unsupported by
and  is in  fact  contrary to  international  law.    As recognized  in  the
paragraph  10 analysis  of  non-derogable rights,  an  "object  and purpose"
analysis  by its  nature requires  consideration of  the particular  treaty,
right, and reservation in question.

  With  respect to  the actual  object and  purpose of  this Covenant, there
appears to  be a misunderstanding.   The object  and purpose  was to protect
human rights,  with  an understanding  that  there  need not  be  immediate,
universal implementation  of all terms  of the treaty.   Paragraph 7  (which
forms the basis for  the analysis in para.  8 and subsequently)  states that

"each  of  the  many  articles,  and  indeed  their  interplay,  secures the
objectives of the Covenant". The implied  corollary is, of course,  that any
reservation  to  any  substantive   provision  necessarily  contravenes  the
Covenant's object and purpose.

  Such  a position  would,  of course,  wholly mistake  the question  of the
object  and  purpose  of  the  Covenant  in  so  far  as  it  bears  on  the
permissibility of reservations.   In fact, a  primary object and  purpose of
the Covenant was  to secure the  widest possible adherence,  with the  clear
understanding  that  a relatively  liberal regime  on the  permissibility of
reservations should therefore be required.
  3.  Specific reservations

  The precise specification  of what is contrary to customary  international
law, moreover,  is a much  more substantial question  than indicated by  the
Comment.    Even  where  a  rule   is  generally  established  in  customary
international  law, the  exact contours  and  meaning  of the  customary law
principle may need to be considered.

  Paragraph 8,  however,  asserts in  a  wholly  conclusory fashion  that  a
number  of  propositions are  customary  international  law which,  to speak
plainly, are  not.  It  cannot be  established on  the basis of  practice or
other authority, for  example, that the mere expression (albeit  deplorable)
of national, racial or religious hatred  (unaccompanied by any overt  action
or  preparation)  is  prohibited   by  customary  international  law.    The
Committee seems to  be suggesting here that  the reservations which a  large
number of States Parties  have submitted to article  20 are per  se invalid.
Similarly, while many are  opposed to the  death penalty in general and  the
juvenile death penalty  in particular,  the practice of States  demonstrates
that there  is currently no  blanket prohibition  in customary international
law.  Such a  cavalier approach to  international law by itself would  raise
serious  concerns about  the methodology  of the  Committee as  well as  its
authority.

  Another point  worthy of  clarification is  whether  the Committee  really
intends that, in the  many areas which it  mentions in paragraphs  8-11, any
reservation  whatsoever is impermissible, or only those which wholly vitiate
the right  in question.   At  the end  of paragraph  8, for  example, it  is
suggested that  while reservations to particular  clauses of  article 14 may
be acceptable, a general reservation could  not be taken to the article as a
whole.   Presumably,  the same  must  also be  true for  many  of  the other
subjects  mentioned.   For example,  even where  there is  a  reservation to
article 20, one would not expect such a  reservation to apply to advocacy of
racial hatred which constitutes incitement to murder or other crime.


4.  Domestic implementation

  The discussion in paragraph 12, as it stands, is very likely to give  rise
to misunderstandings in  at least two respects.   The Committee here states,
with regard  to implementing the  Covenant in  domestic law, that  such laws
"may  need  to be  altered  properly  to  reflect  the  requirements of  the
Covenant; and mechanisms at  the domestic level will be needed to allow  the
Covenant rights to be enforceable at the local level".  (Emphasis added.)

  First,  this statement may  be cited  as an assertion  that States Parties
must allow  suits in  domestic courts  based directly  on the  provisions of
Covenant.  Some countries do in fact have such  a scheme of "self-executing"
treaties.   In  other  countries,  however, existing  domestic  law  already
provides  the  substantive rights  reflected  in  the  Covenant  as well  as
multiple possibilities  for  suit to  enforce  those  rights.   Where  these
existing rights and mechanisms  are in fact adequate to the purposes of  the
Covenant, it seems most unlikely that the  Committee intends to insist  that
the  Covenant be  directly actionable  in court  or that  States  must adopt
legislation to implement the Covenant.

  As a general matter,  deciding on the  most appropriate means of  domestic
implementation of  treaty obligations is, as  indicated in  article 40, left
to the internal law and processes of each State Party.

   Rather,  the Committee may properly  be concerned about the case in which
a State has joined the  Covenant but lacks any means  under its domestic law
by  which Covenant  rights  may  be  enforced.   The  Sth_?_could even  have
similar  constitutional  guarantees   which  are  simply  ignored  or   non-
enforceable.  Such an approach would not, of  course, be consistent with the
fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda.

  Second, paragraph 12 states that  "[r]eservations often reveal  a tendency
of States  not to  want to  change a particular  law".   Some may view  this
statement  as sweepingly  critical of  any reservation  whatsoever which  is
made to conform to existing law.  Of course, since this  is the motive for a
large  majority of  the  reservations  made by  States in  all cases,  it is
difficult  to say  that  this is  inappropriate in  principle.   Indeed, one
might say  that the  more seriously  a State  Party takes  into account  the
necessity  of  providing   strictly  for  domestic  implementation  of   its
international obligations, the more likely it  is that some reservations may
be taken along these lines.

  It appears that the Comment is not intended to make such a criticism,  but
rather  is   aimed  at   the  particular  category  of   "widely  formulated
reservations"  which  preserve   complete  freedom  of  action  and   render
uncertain a State  Party's obligations as a  whole, e.g., that the  Covenant
is  generally subordinated to  the full  unspecified range  of national law.
This, of course,  would be neither appropriate nor lawful.  The  same is not
true, however,  when by  means  of  a discrete  reservation, a  State  Party
declines for  sufficient reasons  to accept  a particular  provision of  the
Covenant in preference for existing domestic law.


5.  Effect of invalidity of reservations

  It seems unlikely that one can misunderstand the  concluding point of this
General  Comment,  in paragraph  18, that  reservations which  the Committee
deems  invalid "will generally be  severable, in the sense that the Covenant
will  be  operative  for  the  reserving   party  without  benefit  of   the
reservation".    Since  this  conclusion  is  so  completely  at  odds  with
established  legal practice and  principles and  even the  express and clear
terms of  adherence by  many States,  it would  be welcome  if some  helpful
clarification could be made.

   The  reservations   contained  in   the  United   States  instrument   of
ratification are integral parts  of its consent to  be bound by the Covenant
and are not severable.  If it were  to be determined that any one or more of
them  were  ineffective,  the  ratification  as  a  whole  could  thereby be
nullified.

  Articles 20 and 21 of the Vienna Convention  set forth the consequences of
reservations and objections to them.   Only two possibilities are  provided.
Either (i) the remainder of the treaty comes into force between the  parties
in question  or (ii)  the treaty does  not come  into force  at all  between
these parties.  In  accordance with article 20,  paragraph 4 (c), the choice
of these results  is left to the objecting  party.  The  Convention does not
even contemplate the possibility that the  full treaty might come into force
for the reserving State.

  The  general view of  the academic literature is  that reservations are an
essential part  of a State's  consent to  be bound.   They cannot  simply be
erased.   This reflects the  fundamental principle  of the law  of treaties:
obligation is based on consent.   A State which does not consent to a treaty
is not bound by that treaty.  A State  which expressly withholds its consent
from  a provision cannot be presumed, on the basis of some legal fiction, to
be bound  by it.   It  is  regrettable that  General Comment  24 appears  to

suggest to the contrary.


B.  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2/

1.  The United Kingdom  is of course aware that the General Comments adopted
by the Committee are not  legally binding.  They  nevertheless command great
respect,  given  the  eminence  of  the  Committee  and  the  status  of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The  issue dealt with
in General Comment Number  24 (52) (reservations to  the Covenant) is one of
great importance,  both in  respect of the  development of the  Covenant and
the Committee's role under  it and in its  wider ramifications.   The United
Kingdom is therefore grateful for the  opportunity provided under article 40
(5) of the Covenant  to submit to the Committee certain observations on  the
General Comment.

2.  These  will be divided  into four  parts:   the legal regime  regulating
reservations to the Covenant; the criteria for assessing compatibility  with
the   object  and  purpose   of  the   Covenant;  the   power  to  determine
compatibility  with  the  object  and  purpose;   the  legal  effect  of  an
incompatible reservation.

The legal regime regulating reservations to the Covenant

3.  The United  Kingdom shares the Committee's concern that the integrity of
the Covenant's  treaty regime should  not be determined  by too extensive  a
practice  of reservations formulated  by States  on becoming  Party to them.
The United Kingdom agrees also that  individual reservations may on occasion
be  so widely  drawn  as  to cast  doubt  on whether  their  maintenance  is
compatible with being Party to the Covenant.   Regrettable though it may be,
such  a situation is not  materially different from that  obtaining in other
areas of international relations, and would  not provide a justification for
a different legal regime to regulate  reservations to human rights treaties.
To create  such a  special regime by  amendment of the  Covenant would be  a
major task.   To do so as  part of the  development of general international
law would, all other considerations aside, be undesirable  if the effect was
to fragment  this aspect  of the  law of  treaties which is  currently under
study by the International Law Commission.

4.   The modern law  of reservations to  multilateral treaties moreover owes
its origin to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice  of
28  May 1951  on  Reservations to  the Genocide  Convention.    The Genocide
Convention  is itself  (in the  Committee's  phrase)  a human  rights treaty
concluded for  the benefit of persons  within the jurisdiction of the States
Parties  to  it.    As  the   International  Court  observed,  the  Genocide
Convention is of  a type in which  "the contracting States  do not  have any
interests of their  own; they merely have, one  and all, a common  interest,
namely the  accomplishment  of those  high  purposes  which are  the  raison
d'etre  of  the  Convention".    It  was in  the  light  precisely  of those
characteristics  of  the  Genocide  Convention,  and  in  the  light  of the
desirability  of widespread  adherence to  it,  that the  Court set  out its
approach towards  reservations.   The  United Kingdom  does not  accordingly
believe that rules  different from those  foreshadowed by  the International
Court and in  due course embodied  in the Vienna  Convention on  the Law  of
Treaties  are required to  enable the  international community  to cope with
reservations to human rights  treaties.  The  correct approach is rather  to
apply the general  rules relating to  reservations laid  down in the  Vienna
Convention  in  a  manner  which  takes   full  account  of  the  particular
characteristics of the treaty in question.

5.    The  argument  that  the  existing  rules  of  international  law  are
inadequate to  cope with  human rights treaties  rests in any  case, as  the
United Kingdom  sees it, on  a mistaken assumption.   The  Committee says in
paragraph  17 that the Vienna  Convention's provisions on the  role of State
objections  in relation  to  reservations are  inappropriate to  address the
problem of  reservations to  human rights  treaties.  This  is because  such

treaties "are not a  web of inter-State exchanges of mutual obligations" and
because "[t]he principle of reciprocity has  no place".  The  United Kingdom
does not find this  to be an adequate account,  for various reasons.  In the
first  place, it  is  not  the basis  on  which the  International Court  of
Justice  approached the Genocide Convention  (para. 3 above).  In the second
place, it is not the  view taken by other authoritative  bodies, such as the
European Court  of Human Rights, which held in 1978 3/  that at the European
Convention on Human Rights "comprises more  than mere reciprocal engagements
between Contracting States.  It creates over and  above a network of  mutual
bilateral  understandings, objective  obligations which in the  words of the
preamble benefit from a 'collective enforcement'"  (emphasis added). 4/   In
the third  place, both  the faculty  under article  41 of  the Covenant  for
bringing inter-State  complaints and the  widespread practice  of States  in
invoking  the Covenant as  against other  States Parties  in respect  of the
treatment of individuals show that in a very  real and practical sense  even
the substantive provisions of the Covenant  are indeed regarded as  creating
"a network of  mutual bilateral undertakings".   Finally, it must be assumed
that,  in respect  of reservations  which  are  clearly compatible  with the
object and  purpose  of the  Covenant,  the  Committee accepts  that  States
Parties exercise the  rights and functions  assigned to them  by the  Vienna
Convention. If  so, it is  not easy to discover a  logical ground for ruling
out  these rights  and  functions for  other  reservations,  including those
where there  is at least  a reasonable measure  of doubt as  to whether  the
reservation is  or is  not compatible  with the  object and  purpose of  the
Covenant.  Given therefore that the  bilateral rights and general  interests
of other  Parties are, as indicated,  directly affected,  the United Kingdom
regards  it as a self-evident proposition that the reaction of those Parties
to a reservation formulated  by one of  them is of direct significance  both
in  law and  in  practice.   In short,  the legal  effect of  any particular
reservation  to a human  rights treaty  is an  amalgam of  the terms  of the
treaty and  the terms and  import of the  reservation, in the  light of  the
reactions to it  by the other treaty Parties  and in the  light of course of
any authoritative third-party procedure that may be applicable.

The criteria for assessing compatibility with  the object and purpose of the
Covenant

6.    The United  Kingdom  shares the  Committee's  view that  an  automatic
identification  between non-derogability  and compatibility with  the object
and purpose  is  too simplistic.    Derogation  from a  formally  contracted
obligation  and reluctance to  undertake the  obligation in  the first place
are not  the same thing.   The United  Kingdom is likewise of  one mind with
the  Committee   that  multifaceted   treaties  like   the  Covenants   pose
considerable problems over  the ascertainment of  their object  and purpose.
The problem  is  one common  to  all  lengthy treaties  containing  numerous
provisions of coordinate status with one another.

7.   The United  Kingdom is  however less  convinced by  the argument  that,
because   human  rights  treaties  are  for  the   benefit  of  individuals,
provisions in  the Covenant that represent  customary international law  may
not  be  the  subject of  reservations.    It  is  doubtful  whether such  a
proposition represents  existing customary  international law;  it is  not a
view shared by most commentators, and States have not  expressly objected to
reservations on  this ground.   In  the United  Kingdom's view,  there is  a
clear distinction between choosing not to  enter into treaty obligations and
trying to  opt out of customary  international law.   Such a distinction  is
inherent in the Committee's recognition  that reservations to  articles that
guarantee customary  international law  rights are  permitted provided  that
the right is not deprived of its basic purpose.

8.  For broadly  similar reasons, the  United Kingdom does not wholly  share
the Committee's concern  over reservations which  exclude the  acceptance of
obligations  which  would   require  changes  in  national  law  to   ensure
compliance with them.  The Committee's  comments that "no real international
rights or obligations have  thus been accepted" and that "all the  essential
elements of  the Covenant guarantees  have been removed" miss  the fact that

States Parties,  even while entering such  reservations, do  at least accept
the  Committee's  supervision,  through  the  reporting  system,  of   those
Covenant rights guaranteed by their national law.

The power to determine compatibility with the object and purpose

 9.  The United  Kingdom shares the  Committee's view as to the  seriousness
of the issue  of compatibility of reservations  with the object  and purpose
of the  treaty in question.  It does  not however  believe that this  is the
central issue  in  the law  and  practice  of reservations  to  multilateral
conventions.   The vast majority of  reservations are in practice dealt with
satisfactorily  through the  operation of  the  normal  rules in  the Vienna
Convention,  it being borne  in mind  that another  Contracting State always
has the right formally to object even to a reservation which is  undoubtedly
admissible (except in the special case  of a reservation expressly permitted
by the treaty).   The question of compatibility  with the object and purpose
is confined to a small number of extreme cases.

10.  It is clear  however that a  legal regime of reservations that  depends
to any extent on the general criterion of compatibility with the object  and
purpose of  a treaty as a  whole will  be uncertain in its  operation in the
absence of  an objective  method for  determining whether  the criterion  is
satisfied.  The availability of binding  third-party procedures could be  of
great  importance  in  this respect,  as  the  International Law  Commission
itself recognized at the  outset.  This state of affairs inevitably raises a
serious question as to the proper role which the Committee itself may  play,
to which the Committee has given serious consideration  at pages 6-7 of  the
General Comment.

11.    The United  Kingdom  shares  the  analysis  that  the Committee  must
necessarily  be  able  to  take a  view  of  the  status  and  effect  of  a
reservation  where this  is required  in order  to permit  the Committee  to
carry out its substantive functions under  the Covenant. Thus, the Committee
might find itself unable  in particular cases to  deliver a report under the
special  powers  conferred upon  it  by  article  41 or  the  First Optional
Protocol,  except  on the  basis of  a  view as  to  the  impact of  a given
reservation.     Similarly,   the   Committee  might,   according   to   the
circumstances,  find  it  appropriate to  form  or  express its  view  on  a
reservation  for the  purpose of  questioning a  State Party in  its reports
under article  40 or  for  the  purpose of  reporting its  own  conclusions.
Paragraph 20 of the General Comment, however,  uses the verb "determine"  in
connection   with  the   Committee's  functions   towards  the   status   of
reservations,  and does so  moreover in  the context if its  dictum that the
task  in  question  is inappropriate  for the  States  Parties.   This would
appear to have implications which call for comment.

12.  Without wishing to take a final view on the matter,  the United Kingdom
would make the following points:

  (a)  Even  if it  were the case  (as the  General Comment  argues but  the
United Kingdom doubts:  see paras. 3-5 above)  that the law on  reservations
is inappropriate  to address  the problem  of reservations  to human  rights
treaties, this would  not of itself  give rise  to a competence or  power in
the Committee  except to the  extent provided for  in the  Covenant; any new
competence could  only be  created by amendment  to the Covenant,  and would
then be exercisable on such terms as were laid down;

  (b)   No  conclusion  as  to the  status or  consequences of  a particular
reservation could be properly determinative unless  it were binding not only
on the  reserving State Party but on  all the Parties to the Covenant, which
would in  turn automatically presuppose that  the Parties  had undertaken in
proper form a prior legal obligation to accept it;

  (c)    There is  a qualitative  distinction  between decisions  judicially
arrived  at after full  legal argument  and determinations  made without the
benefit of a judicial process.

The legal effect of an incompatible reservation

13.   The Committee correctly  identifies articles 20  and 21  of the Vienna
Convention  on the  Law of  Treaties as  containing the  rules which,  taken
together,  regulate  the  legal  effect  of  reservations  to   multilateral
treaties.   The  United Kingdom  wonders  however  whether the  Committee is
right to assume their  applicability to incompatible reservations. The rules
cited clearly do apply to reservations which  are fully compatible with  the
object and purpose but remain open for acceptance  or objection (see para. 9
above).   It  is questionable  however whether  they were  intended also  to
cover reservations  which are inadmissible in limine.  For example, it seems
highly  improbably that  a reservation  expressly  prohibited by  the treaty
(the case  in art. 19 (a) of the Vienna Convention) is open to acceptance by
another  Contracting State.   And if  so, there  is no clear  reason why the
same  should  not  apply to  the  other  cases  enumerated  in  article  19,
including  incompatibility with  the object and  purpose under 19  (c).  The
Genocide Convention  Advisory  Opinion did  indeed  deal  directly with  the
matter, by  stating that  acceptance of  a reservation  as being  compatible
with  the object  and purpose  entitles a  party  to consider  the reserving
State to be party to the  treaty.  In the converse case (i.e. the case where
the reservation  is not compatible  with the object  and purpose) the  Court
states plainly,  "that State  cannot be  regarded as  being a  party to  the
Convention".  5/    This  is  the  approach  which the  United  Kingdom  has
consistently followed in its own treaty practice.

14.   The  General Comment  suggests,  per  contra, that  an  "unacceptable"
reservation will  generally be  severable, in  the sense  that the  Covenant
will be  operative for  the reserving  party as  if the reservation  had not
been entered.   The United Kingdom  agrees that severability  of a kind  may
well offer a solution in appropriate cases,  although its contours are  only
beginning to be explored  in State practice.   However the United Kingdom is
absolutely  clear   that  severability  would   entail  excising  both   the
reservation and  the parts of  the treaty to  which it  applies.   Any other
solution  they  would  find   deeply  contrary  to  principle,  notably  the
fundamental  rule  reflected  in  Article  38  (1)  of  the  Statute of  the
International  Court of  Justice,  that international  conventions establish
rules "expressly recognized by" the Contracting  States.  The United Kingdom
regards it as hardly  feasible to try to hold  a State to  obligations under
the  Covenant which  it self-evidently  has  not "expressly  recognized" but
rather has  indicated  its express  unwillingness  to  accept.   The  United
Kingdom fears  that, questions of principle  aside, an  approach as outlined
in paragraph  20 of the General Comment would risk  discouraging States from
ratifying  human  rights conventions  6/  (since  they would  not  be  in  a
position to  reassure their national Parliaments  as to the status of treaty
provisions on which it was  felt necessary to reserve) or might even lead to
denunciations by existing Parties who ratified  against a set of assumptions
different from those now enunciated in the General Comment.

15.     The  United  Kingdom  believes  that  the  only  sound  approach  is
accordingly that adopted  by the  International Court of  Justice:  a  State
which  purports to  ratify a  human rights  treaty subject  to a reservation
which is fundamentally incompatible  with participation in the treaty regime
cannot be regarded  as having become  a party  at all - unless  it withdraws
the reservation.  The test of incompatibility is  and should be an objective
one, in  which  the views  of competent  third parties  would carry  weight.
Ultimately  however it is  a matter  for the treaty  parties themselves and,
while the  presence or absence of  individual State  "objections" should not
be decisive in relation  to an objective standard, it would be surprising to
find a reservation validly stigmatized as  incompatible with the object  and
purpose of the Covenant if none of the  Parties had taken exception to it on
that ground.  For all other reservations  the rules laid down in  the Vienna
Convention do  and  should  apply  except  to  the extent  that  the  treaty
regulates such matters by its own terms.

16.   The United  Kingdom wishes  finally to  express its  gratitude to  the
Committee for  having focused  attention on what  is undoubtedly a  real and

serious problem and for having illuminated  the underlying issues.  Inasmuch
as these  issues go  wider than the  Covenant itself, or  than human  rights
treaties  in general, the United Kingdom proposes to  reflect further on how
international consideration of these matters can best be carried forward. 


Notes

  1/  Observations transmitted by letter dated 28 March 1995.

  2/  Observations transmitted by letter dated 21 July 1995.

  3/  Ireland v. United Kingdom.

  4/  Series A, No. 25, p. 90, para. 239.

  5/  ICJ Report 1951, at p. 29.

  6/  A similar  point applies for  example to the First Optional  Protocol,
to which the United Kingdom is not, however, a party.

--Annex VII

REVISED GUIDELINES REGARDING THE FORM AND CONTENTS
OF REPORTS FROM STATES PARTIES


            A.  Guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports
       from States parties under article 40 (1) (a)
                of the Covenant 1/

1.  Under  article 40 of the International  Covenant on Civil and  Political
Rights each  State party has  undertaken to submit,  within one  year of the
entry  into force of  the Covenant  in regard to it  and thereafter whenever
the Human  Rights  Committee established  under  the  Covenant so  requests,
reports  on the  measures which  it has  adopted  to  give effect  to rights
recognized in  the Covenant  and on  the progress  made in the  enjoyment of
those rights.  Article 40 also provides that the reports shall indicate  the
factors  and difficulties,  if  any,  affecting  the implementation  of  the
Covenant.

2.  In order to assist  it in fulfilling the tasks  entrusted to it pursuant
to article 40  of the Covenant, the Committee  has decided that  it would be
useful  to  inform  States parties  of  its wishes  regarding  the form  and
contents of reports. Compliance with the  following guidelines will help  to
ensure  that  reports are  presented  in  a  uniform manner  and  enable the
Committee  and States parties to obtain a complete  picture of the situation
in each  State as regards  the implementation of  the rights  referred to in
the Covenant.  This will  also reduce the need for the Committee to  request
additional information under its rules of procedure.

3.   The  general part of the  report should be prepared  in accordance with
the  consolidated guidelines for the  initial part of the  reports of States
parties  to  be  submitted under  the  various  international  human  rights
instruments, including the Covenant, as contained in document HRI/1991/1.

4.   The part of the report relating specifically to parts  I, II and III of
the Covenant should describe in relation to the provisions of each article:

  (a)   The legislative, administrative or other measures in force in regard
to each right;

  (b)  Any restrictions or limitations, even  of a temporary nature, imposed
by law or practice or any other manner on the enjoyment of the right;

  (c)   Any other  factors or  difficulties affecting the  enjoyment of  the

right  by  persons within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State, including  any
factors affecting the equal enjoyment by women of that right;

  (d)  Any  other information on the progress  made in the  enjoyment of the
right.

5.   When  a State party  to the  Covenant is also  a party to  the Optional
Protocol, and if in  the period under review the Committee has issued  views
finding  that the State party  has violated provisions of  the Covenant, the
report should  include  a section  explaining  what  action has  been  taken
relating  to the communication  concerned.   In particular,  the State party
should indicate what remedy  it has afforded the author of the communication
whose rights the Committee found to have been violated.
  6.    The  report  should  be  accompanied  by  copies  of  the  principal
legislative and other  texts referred to in the report.  These  will be made
available to members of  the Committee.  It  should be noted, however, that,
for reasons of  expense, they  will not normally  be reproduced for  general
distribution with the report except  to the extent that  the reporting State
specifically so requests.   It is desirable, therefore,  that when a text is
not actually quoted  in or annexed to the  report itself, the report  should
contain sufficient information to be understood without reference to it.

7.  The  Committee will welcome at any  time information on any  significant
new development in regard  to the rights referred to in the Covenant, but in
any event  it intends,  after the  completion of  its study of  each State's
initial report  and of  any additional  information submitted,  to call  for
subsequent reports under  article 40 (1)  (b) of  the Covenant.  The  aim of
such  further reports will be to  bring the situation up to  date in respect
of each State.

8.  On the basis of reports prepared according to the above guidelines,  the
Committee  is confident  that it  will  be able  to develop  a  constructive
dialogue  with  each  State party  in regard  to  the implementation  of the
Covenant and  thereby contribute  to mutual  understanding and  peaceful and
friendly  relations among  nations in  accordance  with  the Charter  of the
United Nations.


             B.  General guidelines regarding the form and contents
                 of periodic reports from States parties 2/

1.  Under  article 40 (1) of the  Covenant, every State party has undertaken
to submit  reports to the  Human Rights Committee  on the implementation  of
the Covenant:

  (a)   Within  one year of  the entry  into force  of the  Covenant for the
State party concerned;

  (b)  Thereafter whenever the Committee so requests.

2.  At its second session, in August  1977, the Committee adopted guidelines
for  the submission  of reports by States  parties under article 40.  3/  In
drawing up  these guidelines the  Committee had  in mind  in particular  the
initial reports to be submitted by States parties  under article 40 (1) (a).
These guidelines  have been followed by the great majority of States parties
that  have submitted  reports subsequent  to  their  issuance and  they have
proved helpful both to the reporting States and to the Committee.

3.   In paragraph  5 of those  guidelines, the Committee  indicated that  it
intended,  after the completion of  its study of each State's initial report
and of any subsequent information submitted,  to call for subsequent reports
under article 40 (1) (b) of the Covenant.

4.   At its  eleventh session,  in October  1980, the  Committee adopted  by
consensus a  statement concerning the subsequent  stages of  its future work
under  article 40.   It  confirmed its  aim  of  engaging in  a constructive

dialogue with each reporting State and  determined that the dialogue  should
be conducted  on the basis of  periodic reports from  States parties to  the
Covenant (para. (d)).   It also decided that, in the light of its experience
in the  consideration of initial reports,  it should  develop guidelines for
the purpose  of subsequent reports.   Pursuant to this  decision and to  the
decision taken by  the Committee at its thirteenth session to request States
parties to submit reports under article 40 (1) (b) on  a periodic basis, the
Committee  has drawn  up the  following  guidelines  regarding the  form and
contents of such reports, which are designed  to complete and to bring up to
date the information required by the Committee under the Covenant.

5.    General  information  should  be   prepared  in  accordance  with  the
consolidated guidelines  for the initial part  of reports  of States parties
to be  submitted under the various  international human rights  instruments,
including the Covenant, as contained in document HRI/1991/1.

6.  Information relating to each  of the articles in parts  I, II and III of
the Covenant should concentrate especially on:

  (a)   The completion  of the information  before the Committee  as to  the
measures adopted  to  give effect  to  rights  recognized in  the  Covenant,
taking account  of questions raised  in the Committee on  the examination of
any previous  report and including in  particular additional information  as
to questions not previously answered or not fully answered;

  (b)  Information taking into account  general comments which the Committee
may have made under article 40 (4) of the Covenant;

  (c)   Changes  made  or proposed  to  be made  in  the national  laws  and
practices relevant to the Covenant;

  (d)   Action taken as a  result of experience  gained in cooperation  with
the Committee;

  (e)  Factors affecting and difficulties  experienced in the implementation
of the  Covenant, including  any factors  affecting the  equal enjoyment  by
women of rights referred to in the Covenant;

  (f)   The progress  made since the last report  in the enjoyment of rights
recognized in the Covenant.

7.   When  a State party  to the Covenant  is also  a party  to the Optional
Protocol and if, in  the period under review, the Committee has issued views
finding that  the State party  has violated provisions of  the Covenant, the
report should  include  a section  explaining  what  action has  been  taken
relating  to the communication  concerned.   In particular,  the State party
should indicate what remedy it has afforded the  author of the communication
whose rights the Committee found to have been violated.

8.   It should  be noted  that the reporting obligation  extends not only to
the  relevant laws and other norms, but also to  the practices of the courts
and administrative  organs  of the  State  party  and other  relevant  facts
likely to show  the degree of actual enjoyment  of rights recognized by  the
Covenant.

9.  The report should be accompanied by copies of the principal  legislative
and other texts referred to in it.

10.    It is  the  desire  of the  Committee  to  assist  States parties  in
promoting the enjoyment  of rights under  the Covenant.   To  this end,  the
Committee wishes to  continue the dialogue which it has begun with reporting
States  in  the  most  constructive  manner   possible  and  reiterates  its
confidence  that it  will thereby  contribute  to mutual  understanding  and
peaceful  and  friendly  relations  among nations  in  accordance  with  the
Charter of the United Nations.
  Notes

  1/  Adopted by the Committee  at its 44th meeting (second  session), on 29
August 1977,  and  embodying amendments  adopted  by  the Committee  at  its
1002nd meeting (thirty-ninth session), on 24  July 1990, its 1089th  meeting
(forty-second session),  on 25  July 1991,  and its  1415th meeting  (fifty-
third session), on 7 April 1995.

  2/   Adopted by the  Committee at its  308th meeting (thirteenth session),
on 27 July  1981, and embodying amendments adopted  by the Committee at  its
1002nd meeting (thirty-ninth session), on 24  July 1990, its 1089th  meeting
(forty-second session),  on 25  July 1991,  and its  1415th meeting  (fifty-
third session), on 7 April 1995.

  3/  See Official Records of  the General Assembly, Thirty-second  Session,
Supplement No. 44 (A/32/44), annex IV.

--Annex VIII

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE


           Letter dated 13 July 1995 from the Chairman of the Committee
           to the Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to the United Nations Office at Geneva

  We wish to refer to your letter No.  55/1 dated 26 January 1995,  in which
you  conveyed your Government's  position concerning  the submission  of the
fourth  periodic report under  article 40  of the  International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.

  We would  like to  inform  you that  the  Human  Rights Committee  at  its
fiftythird session,  held at United Nations Headquarters from 20  March to 7
April 1995, deeply regretted  the decision of the Government of the  Federal
Republic of  Yugoslavia  (Serbia and  Montenegro)  not  to comply  with  its
reporting obligations.    The  Committee  observed that  the  submission  of
reports under the Covenant constitutes a  solemn legal obligation assumed by
each  State party  and is  indispensable  for  carrying out  the Committee's
basic function  of establishing a positive  dialogue with  States parties in
the  field of  human  rights. Therefore,  non-submission of  reports greatly
hinders the process of dialogue and  seriously undermines the objectives  of
the  Covenant  by  hampering   the  Committee's  ability   to  monitor   the
implementation of the Covenant.

  The Committee has taken  note of the reasons presented by your  Government
as forming  the basis of  its position.   In that regard,  we would like  to
recall that, in a decision of 7 October  1992 requesting your Government  to
submit a report on  specific issues in  respect of persons and events  under
its jurisdiction,  the Committee emphasized that  all the  people within the
territory of  the former Yugoslavia  are entitled to  the guarantees of  the
Covenant  and  that  the   Federal  Republic  of   Yugoslavia  (Serbia   and
Montenegro)  is  bound  by  the  obligations under  the  Covenant.   In  its
comments  adopted   at  the  end  of   the  consideration   of  that  report
(CCPR/C/79/Add.16), the Committee stated  that it regarded the submission of
the  report  by  the  Government  and  the  presence  of   a  delegation  as
confirmation  that   the  Federal   Republic  of   Yugoslavia  (Serbia   and
Montenegro)  had  succeeded, in  respect  of  the  territory  of Serbia  and
Montenegro, to the obligations undertaken under  the Covenant by the  former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  While it  is not for the Committee to take a  position on last September's
action of the Meeting of States parties with  regard to the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia  (Serbia  and  Montenegro),  the Committee  will  continue  to
proceed on the basis of the  above-mentioned understanding and expresses the
hope that the Government of the Federal  Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia  and
Montenegro) will  reconsider  its decision  and  submit  its report  to  the
Committee as soon as possible.

(Signed)  Francisco Jose Aguilar Urbina
Chairman         
Human Rights Committee  
Annex IX

             LIST OF STATES PARTIES' DELEGATIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN
             CONSIDERATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE REPORTS BY THE HUMAN
             RIGHTS COMMITTEE AT ITS FIFTY-SECOND, FIFTY-THIRD AND
FIFTY-FOURTH SESSIONS


NEPAL  RepresentativeMr. Banmali Prasad Lacoul, Minister Counsellor,  Charge
d'affaires a.i., Permanent  Mission of the  Kingdom of  Nepal to the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

  AdviserMr. Ram  Badu Dhakal,  Third  Secretary, Permanent  Mission of  the
Kingdom of Nepal to the United Nations Office at Geneva

TUNISIA     RepresentativeMr.   Mohamed   Ennaceur,   Ambassador,  Permanent
Representative of Tunisia to the United Nations Office at Geneva

  Alternate  Mr. Abdessalem Hetira, Representative in
  representativethe  Ministry of  Foreign  Affairs, Director  of  the  Human
Rights Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  AdvisersMr. Hatem Kotrane, Professor, in charge  of the Human Rights unit,
Ministry of Social Affairs

  Mr. Habib Cherif, Representative in the Ministry of Justice

  Mr.  Youssef Neji,  Chief of  the Human  Rights Service,  Ministry  of the
Interior

  Mr. Moncef Baati, Counsellor, Permanent Mission  of Tunisia to the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

  Mr. Samir Koubaa, Counsellor, Permanent Mission  of Tunisia to the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

  Mr. Raouf Chatti, Counsellor, Permanent Mission  of Tunisia to the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

  Mrs. Rafla Mrabet, Secretary, Permanent Mission  of Tunisia to the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

MOROCCORepresentativeMr. Mohamed  Majdi, Charge  d'affaires a.i.,  Permanent
Mission of the Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva

   Alternate  Mr. Mohamed Lididi, Advisor to the
  representativeSupreme  Court, Director  of  the Prison  and Rehabilitation
Service

  AdvisersMiss Saadia Belmir, Advisor to the  Supreme Court on secondment to
the General Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice

  Mr.  Moulay Lahcen  Aboutahir, First  Secretary, Permanent  Mission of the
Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva

LIBYAN ARAB  RepresentativeMr. Said Hafyana, Chairman of the General
JAMAHIRIYA  People's Committee of Justice and General Security

  AlternateMr. Mohamed Abdelfattah El Zahrah,
  representativeChairman of  the Supreme Court,  General People's  Committee
of Justice and General Security

  AdvisersMr.  Bachir  Alhadi  Al  Jnuli,  Member  of  the  General People's

Committee of Justice and General Security

  Ms.  Najat El Hajjaji,  Counsellor, Permanent  Mission of  the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya to the United Nations Office at Geneva

ARGENTINA  RepresentativeMr. Rodolpho Carlos Barra, Minister of Justice

  AlternateMs. Zelmira Regazzoli, Director General
  representativeof Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,  International
Trade and Worship

  AdvisersMrs.  Maria  Eva  Gatica,  General   Coordinator,  Social  Welfare
Services, Secretary General, Office of the President

  Mr. Francisco Javier Fernandez, Private Secretary, Ministry of Justice

NEW  ZEALAND   RepresentativeMr.  Colin R.  Keating,  Ambassador,  Permanent
Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations in New York

  AlternateMs. Gabrielle Rush, Policy Officer,
  representativeMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

  AdviserMr.  Patrick  Rata, Second  Secretary,  Permanent  Mission  of  New
Zealand to the United Nations in New York
  PARAGUAY     RepresentativeMr.  Juan  Rafael  Caballero  Gonzalez,  Deputy
Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice and Labour

  AlternateMr. Jose Felix Fernandez Estigarribia,
  representativeAmbassador,  Permanent  Representative of  Paraguay  to  the
United Nations

  AdvisersMr. Eric  Maria Salum  Flecha, Director General  of Human  Rights,
Ministry of Justice and Labour

  Mrs. Ana  Maria Balardi  Quesnel, First  Secretary,  Permanent Mission  of
Paraguay to the United Nations

HAITIRepresentativeMme Nicole Denerville, Secretary of State for Justice

  AdviserMr. Napoleon Aubourg, Advisor to the Minister of Justice

UNITED STATES  Representative  Mr. John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary
OF AMERICA  for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State

  Alternate  Ms. Ada E. Deer, Assistant Secretary for
  representativesIndian Affairs, Department of the Interior

  Mr. Conrad K. Harper, Legal Adviser, Department of State

  Ms.   Jo  Ann   Harris,  Assistant   AttorneyGeneral,  Criminal  Division,
Department of Justice

  Mr. Deval  L. Patrick, Assistant  AttorneyGeneral, Civil Rights  Division,
Department of Justice

  AdvisersMr.  T. Alexander  Aleinikoff,  General Counsel,  Immigration  and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

  Ms. Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State

  Mr.   Kevin  Digregory,   Deputy   Assistant   Attorney-General,  Criminal
Division, Department of Justice

  Ms.  Juanita C.  Hernandez,  Counsel to  the  Assistant  Attorney-General,
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

   Ms.  Elizabeth  Homer,   Director,  Office  of  American  Indian   Trust,
Department of the Interior

  Mr. David P. Stewart, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State

  Ms. Beverly  Zweiben, Office  of Economic  and Social  Affairs, Bureau  of
International Organization Affairs, Department of State

  Ms.  Sandra  J.  Ashton,  Attorney  Adviser,  Office  of  the   Solicitor,
Department of the Interior

  Mr. Bradford M. Berry, Counsel  to the Deputy Attorney-General, Department
of Justice

  Mr.  Owen   B.  Cooper,   Associate  General   Counsel,  Immigration   and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice

  Ms. Catherine Kay, Program Officer, Bureau  of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, Department of State

  Mr. Craig Kuehl, United States Mission to the United Nations

  Mr. Yehudah  Mirsky, Office  of External Relations,  Bureau of  Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor, Department of State

  Ms. Cynthia Stewart, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State

  Ms. Tracy  Toulou, Special  Assistant to  the Assistant  Attorney-General,
Criminal Division, Department of Justice

  Ms. Nancy Wade, United States Mission to the United Nations

  Ms. Lisa  Winston, Special  Assistant to  the Assistant  Attorney-General,
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice

YEMEN  RepresentativeMr. Yahya Geghman, Ambassador, Permanent
(52nd  session)   Representative of  the  Republic of  Yemen to  the  United
Nations Office at Geneva

  AdviserMr. Abdul Rahman  Al-Musibli, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of  the
Republic of Yemen to the United Nations Office at Geneva
  YEMEN  RepresentativeMr. Hussein Al-Hubaishi, Adviser to the
(53rd session)  Government of Yemen

  AdvisersMr.  Abdallah   Saleh  Al-Ashtal,   Ambassador  Extraordinary  and
Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Yemen to the United Nations

  Ms. Noria  Abdullah Ali Al-Hamami,  First Secretary,  Permanent Mission of
Yemen to the United Nations

UKRAINE  RepresentativeMr.  Vitali Krukov, Chief Consultant,  Administration
of the President of Ukraine, Head of the Delegation

  AdvisersMr. Oleg Shamshur, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Ukraine

  Mr. Yevhen Semashko, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Ukraine

LATVIA  RepresentativeMs.  Inese Birzniece, Head of Delegation,  Chairperson
of the Parliamentary Commission for Human Rights

  AdvisersMs.  Sandra  Kalniete,  Ambassador,  Permanent  Representative  of
Latvia to the United Nations Office at Geneva

  Mr.  Eglils  Levits, Ambassador  of  Latvia  to the  Swiss  Confederation,
Former Minister of Justice

  Ms.  Dace Dobraja, Chief  of the  International Law  Division, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs

  Ms. Vija Jakobsone, Attorney at Law

RUSSIAN  RepresentativeMr. Valentin Kovalev, Head of Delegation,
FEDERATION   Minister of  Justice, Chairman  of the  Provisional Supervisory
Commission  on  the Observance  of  Constitutional  Rights  and Freedoms  of
Citizens

  AdvisersMr.  Andrei  Kolossovsky,  Ambassador,  Permanent  Representative,
Geneva

  Ms. Ludmila Zavadskaya,  Chairperson, Subcommittee on Federal  Legislation
and Human Rights of Russia's State Duma Committee on Legislation, Legal  and
Judicial Reform

  Mr. Valery Chernikov, Chief, Legal Department, Ministry of the Interior
    Mr.  Roman  Chermenteev, Consultant,  State and  Law  Department to  the
President of Russia

  Mr.  Victor Makazan,  Chief of  Executive Board,  Provisional  Supervisory
Commission  on the  Observance  of  Constitutional Rights  and  Freedoms  of
Citizens

  Mrs.  Lelia   Alehicheva,  Chief  of   Legal  Expertise  Branch,   Central
Commission on Elections

  Mr. Andrei Maksimov, Assistant to the Minister of Justice

  Mr. Mikhail Otdelnov, Assistant to the Minister of Justice

  Mr.  Mikhail   Lebedev,   Deputy   Head,   Department   of   International
Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Aleksey Rogov, Chief, Human Rights Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. Oleg Malginov, Senior Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

  Mr. Andrey Kovalev, Senior Counsellor, Permanent Mission, Geneva

  Mr. Youri Boitchenko, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

  Mr. Nikolay Okinin, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

  Mr. Vladimir Dolgoborodov, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva

UNITED KINGDOM OF  Representative  Mr. J. F. Halliday, Deputy Secretary,
GREAT BRITAIN AND  Criminal Department, Home Office
NORTHERN IRELAND
  AlternatesMrs.  S. A.  Evans,  Principal Assistant,  Legal  Adviser,  Home
Office

  Mr. S. Bramley, Assistant Secretary on secondment from the Home Office

  AdvisersMs. F. Spencer, Principal, Home Office

  Sir Franklin Berman, The Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

   Mr. I. Barnard, First Secretary, United Kingdom Mission, Geneva

  Ms. E. Doherty, Third Secretary, United Kingdom Mission, Geneva

SRI  LANKA     RepresentativeMr.  Bernard  A.  B.  Goonetilleke,   Permanent
Representative to the United Nations (Leader of the delegation)

  AdvisersMr. Rohan Perera, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  Ms. A. Wijewardena, Deputy Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  Mr. A. L. Abdul Azeez, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka  to
the United Nations Office at Geneva

--Annex X

            OBSERVATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5,
            PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS*
________________________

  *  To be issued subsequently in Official  Records of the General Assembly,
Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 4 (A/50/40), vol. II.
 Annex XI

         DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DECLARING COMMUNICATIONS
         INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS*
________________________

  *  To be issued subsequently in Official  Records of the General Assembly,
Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/50/40), vol. II.

 Annex XII

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD


Reports of States parties

CCPR/C/28/Add.17    Second  periodic  report  of  the Libyan  Arab          
Jamahiriya
        - additional information

CCPR/C/70/Add.6  Third periodic report of Sri Lanka

CCPR/C/74/Add.2  Initial report of Nepal

CCPR/C/81/Add.1/Rev.1  Initial report of Latvia

CCPR/C/81/Add.4    Initial report of the United States of America

CCPR/C/81/Add.5    Initial report of Estonia

CCPR/C/81/Add.6    Initial report of Brazil

CCPR/C/81/Add.7    Initial report of Guatemala

CCPR/C/84/Add.2    Fourth periodic report of the Russian   Federation

CCPR/C/84/Add.3    Initial report of Paraguay

CCPR/C/95/Add.1    Fourth periodic report of Spain

CCPR/C/95/Add.2    Fourth periodic report of Ukraine

CCPR/C/95/Add.3    Fourth periodic report of the United Kingdom

CCPR/C/95/Add.4    Fourth periodic report of Sweden

CCPR/C/105      Initial report of Haiti

Comments of the Human Rights Committee on States parties' reports

CCPR/C/79/Add.42    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Nepal

CCPR/C/79/Add.43    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States  
          parties' reports - Tunisia

CCPR/C/79/Add.44    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Morocco

CCPR/C/79/Add.45    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
           parties' reports - Libyan Arab   Jamahiriya

CCPR/C/79/Add.46    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
           parties' reports - Argentina

CCPR/C/79/Add.47    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - New Zealand
  CCPR/C/79/Add.48    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Paraguay

CCPR/C/79/Add.49    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Haiti

CCPR/C/79/Add.50    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - United States of   America

CCPR/C/79/Add.51    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Yemen

CCPR/C/79/Add.52    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States
          parties' reports - Ukraine

CCPR/C/79/Add.53    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States   
          parties' reports - Latvia

CCPR/C/79/Add.54    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States   
          parties' reports - Russian Federation

CCPR/C/79/Add.55    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States   
          parties' reports - United Kingdom   of Great Britain   
          and Northern Ireland

CCPR/C/79/Add.56    Comments of the Human Rights Committee   on States   
          parties' reports - Sri Lanka

General comments

CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6General Comments  adopted under  article 40,  paragraph
4, of the International Covenant  on   Civil and Political Rights -  General
Comment   No. 24 (52) (reservations and declarations)

Guidelines

CCPR/C/5/Rev.2Revised guidelines  regarding the  form and    contents     of
initial reports from States parties

CCPR/C/20/Rev.2Revised guidelines regarding  the form and     contents    of
periodic reports from States parties

Provisional agendas and annotations

CCPR/C/99Provisional agenda and annotations (fifty-  second session)

CCPR/C/104Provisional agenda and annotations (fifty-  third    session)

CCPR/C/107Provisional agenda and annotations (fifty-  fourth    session)

 Notes concerning the consideration of reports submitted by States parties

CCPR/C/100Consideration of initial reports submitted by    States    parties
under  article 40  of the    Covenant  due in  1995: note  by the Secretary-
General

CCPR/C/101Consideration of  second periodic  reports    submitted  by States
parties under  article 40  of     the Covenant  due in  1995:   note by  the
Secretary-General

CCPR/C/102Consideration  of third  periodic  reports    submitted  by States
parties  under article  40 of     the Covenant  due in  1995:   note  by the
Secretary-General

CCPR/C/103Consideration of  fourth periodic  reports    submitted by  States
parties  under  article 40  of    the  Covenant due  in 1995:   note  by the
Secretary-General

Summary records of Committee discussions

CCPR/C/SR.1358-1386    Summary records of the fifty-second session

CCPR/C/SR.1387-1415    Summary records of the fifty-third session

CCPR/C/SR.1416-1444    Summary records of the fifty-fourth session


-----


 

This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.

Date last posted: 18 December 1999 16:30:10
Comments and suggestions: esa@un.org