CCPR/C/116/D/2084/2011
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
The State party’s lack of cooperation
6.1
The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that there are no legal grounds for
the consideration of the author’s communication, insofar as it is registered in violation of
the provisions of the Optional Protocol; that it has no obligations regarding recognition of
the Committee’s rules of procedure nor the Committee’s interpretation of the provisions of
the Optional Protocol; and that decisions taken by the Committee on the present
communication will be considered by its authorities as “invalid”.
6.2
The Committee recalls that under article 39 (2) of the Covenant, it is empowered to
establish its own rules of procedure, which States parties have agreed to recognize. It
further observes that, by adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant
recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from
individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the
Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in a State’s adherence to
the Optional Protocol is the undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so
as to permit and enable it to consider such communications and, after examination thereof,
to forward its Views to the State party and to the individual (art. 5 (1) and (4)). It is
incompatible with those obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent
or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication, and
in the expression of its Views.2 It is up to the Committee to determine whether a
communication should be registered. The Committee observes that, by failing to accept the
competence of the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered
and by declaring beforehand that it will not accept the Committee’s determination on the
admissibility or the merits of the communication, the State party is violating its obligations
under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
7.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
7.3
The Committee notes the State party’s objection to the admissibility of the
communication as the author has not complained to the prosecutor’s office under the
supervisory review procedure. The Committee notes, however, that the author filed a
complaint with the Prosecutor General’s office and the Minsk city prosecutor’s office,
appealed the decision of the Soviet District prosecutor to the Soviet District court and filed
a supervisory appeal with the Minsk city court. Accordingly, the Committee considers that
it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the
communication.
2
4
See communications No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October
2000, para. 5.1, Nos. 1867/2009, 1936/2010, 1975/2010, 1977/2010, 1978/2010, 1979/2010,
1980/2010, 1981/2010 and 2010/2010, Levinov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, para. 8.2;
No. 1948/2010, Turchenyak et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2013, para 5.2 and
No. 1950/2010, Timoshenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 5.2.