CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 6 January 2011, the State party conveyed, with regard to the
present communication and several other communications before the Committee, inter alia,
its concern about unjustified registration of communications submitted by individuals under
its jurisdiction who, it considers, have not exhausted all available domestic remedies in the
State party, including appealing to the Prosecutor’s Office for a supervisory review of a
judgement having the force of res judicata, in violation of article 2 of the Optional Protocol
to the Covenant. It submits that the present communication and several other
communications were registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol; that
there are no legal grounds for the State party to consider those communications; and that
any decision taken by the Committee on such communications will be considered legally
invalid. It further states that any references in that connection to the Committee’s longstanding practice are not legally binding on it.
4.2
By a letter of 19 April 2011, the Chair of the Committee informed the State party
that, in particular, it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant that a State party must provide the Committee with all the information at its
disposal. Therefore, the State party was requested to submit further observations as to the
admissibility and the merits of the case. The State party was also informed that, in the
absence of observations from the State party, the Committee would proceed with the
examination of the communication based on the information available to it.
4.3
By note verbale of 5 October 2011, the State party submitted, inter alia, with regard
to the present communication, that it believed that there were no legal grounds for its
consideration, insofar as it was registered in violation of article 1 of the Optional Protocol
to the Covenant. It maintains that the author has failed to exhaust all available domestic
remedies and has failed to appeal to the Prosecutor’s Office under the supervisory review
procedure.
4.4
In a note verbale dated 25 January 2012, the State party submitted that upon
becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, it had agreed under article 1 thereof to recognize
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals
subject to its jurisdiction, who claim to be victims of a violation by the State party of any
rights protected by the Covenant. It notes, however, that that recognition was undertaken in
conjunction with other provisions of the Optional Protocol, including those establishing the
criteria regarding petitioners and the admissibility of their communications, in particular
articles 2 and 5. The State party maintains that, under the Optional Protocol, States parties
have no obligation to recognize the Committee’s rules of procedure, nor its interpretation of
the provisions of the Optional Protocol, which could only be effective when done in
accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It submits that, in relation
to the complaint procedure, States parties should be guided first and foremost by the
provisions of the Optional Protocol and that references to the Committee’s long-standing
practice, methods of work and case law are not subjects of the Optional Protocol. It also
submits that any communication registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional
Protocol will be viewed by the State party as incompatible with the Optional Protocol and
will be rejected without comments on the admissibility or merits, and any decision taken by
the Committee on such rejected communications will be considered by its authorities as
“invalid”. The State party considers that the present communication, as well as several other
communications before the Committee, were registered in violation of the Optional
Protocol.
4