UN Human Rights Committee

The Committee evaluates the reports on the implementation of the Covenant submitted by the participating countries, draws up comments on the Covenant (“general comments”) and expresses considerations on the complaints of states and private individuals about the violation of the Covenant (except article 1) by countries that have ratified the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Members of the committee have the right to express dissenting opinions attached to the considerations.

The Committee is a body of independent experts, with all participating States reporting regularly to the Committee on how the rights are implemented. The State must provide an initial report one year after accession to the Covenant, and then at the request of the Committee (usually every four years). The Committee examines each report and presents its views and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations”. ^[one]

The legal significance of the considerations is assessed by J. Möller and A. de Zayas as follows: “despite the fact that formally the Committee’s considerations are not legally binding, the opinion that States parties are obligated to ensure that the victim of the violation established by the Committee is effective a remedy in accordance with part 3 (a) of article 2 of the Covenant ” ^[2] .

For countries that have ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee is empowered to consider individual complaints of human rights violations. Based on the consideration of an individual complaint, the Committee makes recommendations to the authorities. These recommendations may contain requirements for reviewing the applicant’s case, payment of any compensation to him (without specifying a specific amount in the Committee’s decision).

For example, on October 31, 2012, the UN Human Rights Committee approved Fedotova’s complaint against Russia , recognizing the provisions of the Ryazan Oblast Law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among minors contrary to two articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ^[3] .

The Committee condemned the vagueness of the wording of the law, from which it was unclear whether the term “homosexuality” refers to sexual orientation or sexual activity, and ruled that Russia could not demonstrate the need to restrict Fedotova’s right to express her sexual identity and her desire to understand her, in that including involving minors in the discussion of issues related to homosexuality. The Committee concluded that the Ryazan law was discriminatory and that the Russian Federation violated article 19, paragraph 2 (the right to freedom of expression) in conjunction with article 26 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Covenant and ordered Russia to take the necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future ^{[4] [ 5]} .

On October BB, 2013, the Ryazan Regional Court, following a complaint from Fedotova, quashed decisions previously made in the Fedotova case ^{[6] [7]} . Soon Fedotova also obtained in the Supreme Court a confirmation of this decision ^[8] .

In practice, the recommendations of the Committee (as well as other UN treaty instruments) are not implemented by individual countries. For example, in April 2017, it was announced that since 2011 the UN committees had passed 25 decisions in favor of the applicants from Kazakhstan , but none of them was executed by the Kazakh authorities due to the lack of the necessary national legislation ^[9] .

Despite protests by representatives of the Committee, the Belarusian authorities even carry out death sentences , complaints of which are still being considered by the Committee. For example, in 2014 P. Selyun and A. Goryunov were executed in Belarus, despite the fact that they filed complaints with the Committee and he asked the Belarusian authorities to postpone the execution of their sentences ^[10] . In October 2015, the Committee ruled that the execution of V. Yuzepchuk (executed in 2010) was a violation of his right to life, his guilty plea was obtained under torture, and the trial itself, which ended with the death penalty, did not meet the criteria for independence and impartiality ^[11] .

• UN Human Rights Council
• UN Security Council
• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights
• US Human Rights Reports
• European Court of Human Rights

• Hansky R., Sheinin M. (comp.) Case Law of the Human Rights Committee , Institute of Human Rights, University of Abo Academy (Turku), 2004. ISBN 952-12-1295-0
• De Zayas A., Möller J. Th. The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008: A Handbook. NPEngel Publishers, Kehl am Rhein, 2009, ISBN 978-3-88357-144-7 .
• Ismailov B.I. Human Rights Committee / International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies. (neopr.) (2006). Date of treatment August 14, 2012. Archived on August 18, 2012.

• UN Human Rights Committee
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  • First Optional Protocol
  • Second Optional Protocol
• UN HRC Views on Individual Complaints
• UNHCR Individual Complaints Considerations Database
• UNHCR Individual Complaint Compilation
• General comments adopted by the Human Rights Committee