Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
WCL4 - admissibility
1
Admissibility under the UN human rights treaties
a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party. … This principle also applies to those within the power or effective control of the forces of a State Party acting outside its territory, regardless of the circumstances in which such power or effective control was obtained …
the positive obligations on States Parties to ensure Covenant rights will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State, not just against violations of Covenant rights by its agents, but also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of Covenant rights in so far as they are amenable to application between private persons or entities. There may be circumstances in which a failure to ensure Covenant rights as required by article 2 would give rise to violations by States Parties of those rights, as a result of States Parties’ permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities.
non-refoulement
Territorial restrictions
(ratione loci)
Victim requirement
- Mauritian Women's case (35/78)
- Poongavaman v Mauritius (567/93)
- Lamagna v Australia (737/97)
- Singer v Canada (455/91)
- Y v Australia (772/97)
- E.H.P v Canada (67/80)
- Queenan v Canada (1379/05)
- Toonen v Australia (488/92)
- Lopez Burgos v Uruguay (52/79)
- Montero v Uruguay (106/81)
- General Comment 31 (para 10)
- Munaf v Romania (1539/06)
Time requirements
(Ratione Temporis rule)
State responsibility
- Konye and Konye v Hungary (520/92)
- Parkanyi v Hungary (410/90)
- Somers v Hungary (566/93)
- Lovelace v Canada (24/77) - continuing violations
- S.E. v Argentina (275/88)
- GC 31, para 8
- Keshavjee v Canada (949/00)
- Goekce v Austria (CEDAW 5/05)
- Yildirim v Austria (CEDAW 6/05)
- Judge v Canada (829/98)
- H.v.d.P. v Netherlands (217/86)
- Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium (1472/06)
Miscellaneous
Must concern a claim under the relevant treaty
Must sufficiently substantiate claim
Treaty bodies will be reticent to overrule findings of fact by local tribunals
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
- Vicente v Colombia (612/95)
- Dermit Barbato v Uruguay (84/81)
- Tillman v Australia (1635/07)
- P.S. v Denmark (397/90)
- Henry v Jamaica (230/87)
Simultaneous submission to other international procedure (Art 5(2)(a) OP)
- Baboeram et al v Suriname (149-154/83)
- Fanali v Italy (75/80)