Human Rights Committee dismisses complaints against Belarus, Spain, Norway, Ukraine, Croatia and New Zealand

02.03.2015

E.V. v. Belarus (1989/2010)

E.V. v. Belarus (1989/2010)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Belarus had violated its obligations under articles 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to respect for the inherent dignity of the human person in detention and to a fair trial. The author of the communication was E.V., a Belarusian national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under articles 2 and 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation and for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Cañada Mora v. Spain (2070/2011)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Spain had violated its obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to a fair trial. The author of the communication was Mr Cañada Mora, a Spanish national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

N.U. v. Norway (2042/2011)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Norway had violated its obligations under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment. The author of the communication was Mr N.U., a stateless person. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Tonenkaya v. Ukraine (2123/2011)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Ukraine had violated its obligations under articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to life and to equality before the courts. The author of the communication was Ms Tonenkaya, a Ukrainian national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under articles 2 and 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation and for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Vojnović v. Croatia (2068/2011)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Croatia had violated its obligations under articles 2, 7, 9, 14, 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy, to freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment, to liberty and security of the person, to a fair trial, to freedom from unlawful interference with the home, and to freedom from discrimination before the law. The author of the communication was Mr Vojnović, a Croatian citizen of Serb origin. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol due to the matter being subject to another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

A.W.K. v. New Zealand (1998/2010)

In October 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether New Zealand 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 to a fair trial. The author of the communication was A.W.K., a national of New Zealand. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation.

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

Category:

Mechanism
  • Human Rights Committee (CCPR)
Country
  • Belarus
  • Canada
  • Croatia
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Ukraine