CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1
Page 2
B. Positive aspects
5.
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
establishing the applicability of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
which reflects fundamental rights guaranteed by the Covenant in any armed conflict.
6.
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005),
which held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty
on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. In this regard,
the Committee reiterates the recommendation made in its previous concluding observations,
encouraging the State party to withdraw its reservation to article 6 (5) of the Covenant.
7.
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia (2002),
which held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are cruel and unusual punishments,
and encourages the State party to ensure that persons suffering from severe forms of mental
illness not amounting to mental retardation are equally protected.
8.
The Committee welcomes the promulgation of the National Detention Standards in 2000,
establishing minimum standards for detention facilities holding Department of Homeland
Security detainees, and encourages the State party to adopt all measures necessary for their
effective enforcement.
9.
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence et al. v. Texas
(2003), which declared unconstitutional legislation criminalizing homosexual relations between
consenting adults.
C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
10.
The Committee notes with concern the restrictive interpretation made by the State party
of its obligations under the Covenant, as a result in particular of (a) its position that the Covenant
does not apply with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, nor in
time of war, despite the contrary opinions and established jurisprudence of the Committee and
the International Court of Justice; (b) its failure to take fully into consideration its obligation
under the Covenant not only to respect, but also to ensure the rights prescribed by the Covenant;
and (c) its restrictive approach to some substantive provisions of the Covenant, which is not in
conformity with the interpretation made by the Committee before and after the State party’s
ratification of the Covenant. (articles 2 and 40)
The State party should review its approach and interpret the Covenant in good
faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their
context, including subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose.
The State party should in particular (a) acknowledge the applicability of the
Covenant with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory,