Admissibility Decisions: Human Rights Committee dismisses complaints against Bulgaria, Belarus, Australia, Azerbaijan, Argentina and France

23.12.2014

S.I.D. et al. v. Bulgaria (1926/2010)

S.I.D. et al. v. Bulgaria (1926/2010)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Bulgaria had violated its obligations under articles 2, 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the rights to an effective remedy, freedom from unlawful and arbitrary interference with the home, and freedom from discrimination before the law. The communication was submitted by 37 Bulgarian nationals of Roma ethnicity. The Committee considered that the authors’ claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

Yachnik v. Belarus (1990/2010)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Belarus had violated its obligations under articles 2, 18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination before the law. The author of the communication was Ms Yachnik, a Belarusian national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

Hickey v. Australia (1995/2010)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Australia had violated its obligations under articles 2, 6 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy, the right to life, and freedom from discrimination before the law. The author of the communication was Ms Hickey, an Australian national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (2042/2011)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Azerbaijan had violated its obligations under articles 7, 10, 14, 15 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person in detention, equality before the courts, the prohibition of retroactive criminal law, and freedom from discrimination before the law. The author of the communication was Mr Huseynov, a national of Azerbaijan. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

D’Amore v. Argentina (2071/2011)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Argentina had violated its obligations under articles 2, 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy, equality before the courts, and freedom from discrimination before the law. The author of the communication was Mr D’Amore, a national of Argentina. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

Pronina v. France (2390/2014)

In July 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether France had violated its obligations under articles 2 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy and equality before the courts. The author of the communication was Ms Pronina, a Russian citizen. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 and 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation and the matter having already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Sam Hunter Jones is an international lawyer, based in London.

UN Photo/JC Mcllwaine