Lithuania, New Zealand, Slovakia
, Pacific
News

Admissibility Decisions: Human Rights Committee dismisses cases against Slovakia, New Zealand and Lithuania

T.W. and G.M. v. Slovak Republic (1963/2010)

In March 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Slovakia had violated its obligations under articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy and non-discrimination before the law. The communication was submitted by two Slovakian nationals, T.W. and G.M. The Committee considered that the authors’ claims were inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation and for incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant respectively.

X.G.H. v. New Zealand (2197/2012)

In March 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether New Zealand had violated its obligations under articles 2, 14, 17, 23 and 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to an effective remedy, non-discrimination before the law, freedom from unlawful interference with family life, and protection as a minor child. The author of the communication was Ms X.G.H., a Chinese citizen. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under article 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol for failing to demonstrate any impairment of the author’s or her son’s personal rights and for lack of substantiation respectively.

G.J. v. Lithuania (1894/2009)

In March 2014, the Committee was asked to consider whether Lithuania had violated its obligations under articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in failing to uphold the right to freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment, to liberty and security of the person, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and the procedural guarantees under the Covenant in defending criminal charges. The author of the communication was Mr G.J., a Lithuanian national. The Committee considered that the author’s claims were inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol for lack of substantiation and for incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant respectively.

Sam Hunter Jones is an international lawyer, based in Paris.

Stay in the loop!

Would you like to be informed of future events, news, updates on our work, invitations and appeals? Please enter your email address below!