B.W.M.Z. v. The Netherlands (1788/2008)

B.W.M.Z. v. The Netherlands (1788/2008)

In March 2013, the Committee was asked to consider whether the Netherlands had violated its obligations under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold an individual’s right to a fair hearing. The author of the communication was B.W.M.Z., a Dutch national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 2 and article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and failure to substantiate the claims respectively.

X. v. The Netherlands (1886/2009)

In March 2013, the Committee was asked to consider whether the Netherlands had violated its obligations under article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold an individual’s right to appeal a criminal conviction. The author of the communication was X., a Dutch national. As the author had submitted the claim anonymously, the Committee considered the claim to be inadmissible in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol and Rule 96(a) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure. 

Q. H. L. v. Australia (1938/2010)

In April 2010, the Committee was asked to consider whether Australia violated article 6 read in conjunction with article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by refusing to grant asylum to Q.H.L, a Chinese national and the author of the communication. The Committee held that the communication was inadmissible under article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol because the author had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. 

A.P. v. Russian Federation (1857/2008)

In May 2008, the Committee was asked to consider whether the Russian Federation violated article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by requiring the author to be listed as a candidate by an existing political party in order to stand as an independent candidate in federal parliamentary elections. The author of the communication was A.P, a Russian national. The majority of the Committee noted the need for Russia to explain the available remedies to the author and how they addressed his claims. The Committee concluded that the author needed to provide more specific information to substantiate the claim for the purposes of admissibility under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Two Committee members dissented primarily on the grounds that a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and a European Council report (noting that the conditions to register new political parties in Russia were unduly excessive) together with the relevant Russian federal law, provided a sufficient basis to determine admissibility.

Sam Hunter Jones and Sarah Jones are international lawyers, based in Paris.