A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System by http://co-guide.org is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/deed.en_US.
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System
Human Rights Council Special Procedures
Web Link:
Summary
“Special procedures” is the name given to the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council to monitor human rights violations in specific countries or examine global human rights issues. There are basically two different mandates:
- Thematic mandates: these cover special themes or aspects of human rights. The two most relevant for conscientious objection are the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. However, others might also be relevant in cases of recruitment, detention, maltreatment or other issues around conscientious objection, such as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SRHRDefenders/Pages/SRHRDefendersIndex.aspx), the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/SRTortureIndex.aspx), the Special Rapporteur on the right to Education (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/SREducation/Pages/SREducationIn...) and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/OpinionIndex.aspx). An overview of the thematic mandates is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Themes.aspx.
- Country mandates cover certain countries or regions. They can be relevant if there is a country mandate for your country. An overview of country mandates is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Countries.aspx.
The principal functions of Special Procedures are:
- analysing the relevant thematic issue or country situation, including visits to countries;
- advising on the measures which should be taken by the relevant Government(s) or other actors;
- alerting the UN agencies, in particular the Human Rights Council, and the public to the need to address specific situations and issues;
- advocating on behalf of victims of human rights violations through measures such as urgent action and by calling upon States to respond to specific allegations and provide redress;
- activating and mobilising the international and national communities and the Human Rights Council to address particular human rights issues, and to encourage cooperation among Governments, civil society, and inter-governmental organisations;
- following up on recommendations
In individual cases they can send so called communications (urgent appeals and letters of allegation) on alleged violations of human rights to the Governments concerned.
They present their annual reports, as well as reports on country visits and thematic studies to the Human Rights Council and selected documents to the General Assembly. All special procedures jointly produce a communications report for each session of the Human Rights Council, which includes letters of allegation and urgent appeals, and responses received from governments.
1. Likely results from use of mechanism
In individual cases, the mandate holder may send either an urgent appeal or a letter of allegation (of human rights violations) to the Government of the state concerned. Depending on the response received from the Government, the mandate holder will decide on further steps to take.
As a general rule, the existence and content of both urgent appeals and letters of allegation remain confidential until a summary of such communications and the replies received from the State concerned are included in the joint communications report of all special procedures to the Human Rights Council. The joint communications report also includes links to the original urgent appeal or letter of allegation, and – if available – to the Government's response.
The Special Procedures can be used for complaints about state law and practice. The mandate holder may raise these issues as and when he or she thinks it appropriate.
The mandate holders of the Special Procedures conduct country visits, during which they meet with representatives of the State, but also with NGOs. The Special procedures can only visit countries which have agreed to their request for invitation. Some countries have issued "standing invitations", which means that they are, in principle, prepared to receive a visit from any special procedures mandate holder. As of the end of December 2011, 90 States had extended standing invitations to the special procedures. After their visits, special procedures' mandate-holders issue a mission report containing their findings and recommendations.
2. To which States does the mechanism apply?
All states
3. Who can submit information?
Everybody.
4. When should information be submitted?
Information on individual cases should be submitted as soon as possible, especially in cases where an urgent action by the Special Procedure is desired.
For information on State law and practice information can be submitted at any time. It is also advisable to watch out for visits of a relevant Special Procedure to your country, and to submit information timely before a scheduled visit, and to attempt to schedule a meeting during the visit. A coalition of NGOs might have a higher chance to have a meeting during a country visit than an individual NGO so far unknown to the Special Procedure.
5. Are there any special rules of procedure?
Information can be submitted by post or electronically, but anonymous submissions will not be considered.
In individual cases, submissions to the Special Procedures are not a quasi-judicial procedure, which means that they are not meant to replace national or international legal procedures. Therefore, there is no need for domestic remedies to be exhausted.
Allegations of human rights violations should contain clear and concise details of the details of the case, the name and other identifying information regarding the individual victim(s), information as to the circumstances including – if available – date and place of incidents and alleged perpetrators, suspected motives, and any steps already taken at the national, regional or international level regarding the case(s).
6. What happens to a submission (how long will it take)?
Mandate holders of the Special Procedures may acknowledge receipt of information from individuals and organisations, but they often do not do so. They are also not required to inform those who provide information about any subsequent measures they have taken – and they often don't.
In case of request for an urgent action, the Quick Response Desk of the Special Procedures Division of the OHCHR coordinates the sending of communications by all mandates. Governments are generally requested to provide a substantive response to urgent appeals within 30 days. Only in appropriate cases a mandate holder may decide to make such urgent appeals public by issuing a press release.
Governments are usually requested to respond to letters of allegation of human rights violations within two months.
A summary of urgent appeals and letters of allegation and responses from Governments is usually included in the joint communications report of the Special Procedures to the Human Rights Council. This will include the names of the victims, unless there are specific reasons why the names of the victims should remain confidential. In this case, explain those reasons in your initial submission.
The joint communications reports can be accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
Contact Details:
How to send information on alleged human rights violations to Special Procedures:
Special Procedures Division
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211
Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: +4122 917 90 06
For urgent actions:
E-mail: urgent-action@ohchr.org
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm
For further information, or to submit information (other than specific information on alleged human rights violations), please contact: spdinfo@ohchr.org
Further Reading:
- OHCHR website on Special Procedures: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm
- OHCHR: Special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights: Urgent appeals and letters of allegation on human rights violations, April 2005, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/LeafletCommunications_en.pdf
- Annual Meeting of special procedures: Manual of Operations of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, August 2008, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/Manual_Operations2008.pdf
Reports
None
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Summary
The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. It was formerly known as the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance and was originally created by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The mandate is primarily based on article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the ICCPR and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
The mandate holder is appointed to identify and examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world which are inconsistent with the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur recommends remedial measures as appropriate which includes transmitting urgent appeals (to try to prevent human rights violations) and letters of allegation (about events which have occurred) to States. Furthermore the mandate holder undertakes fact-finding country visits and submits reports on them to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly as well as annual reports, highlighting state practice, trends and individual cases, and thematic studies.
As conscientious objection as a human rights falls under the right to freedom of thought, religion, or belief, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs has the mandate most closely related to conscientious objection to military service, and takes up most regularly issues of conscientious objection. Cases of non-religious conscientious objectors might however, be a little more difficult, although theoretically they fall under the mandate.
1. Likely results from use of mechanism
a) Individual cases
After the Special Rapporteur has received information on cases of alleged human rights violations, the mandate holder might either send an urgent appeal or a letter of allegation to the Government of the state concerned. Depending on the response received from the Government, the Special Rapporteur will decide on further steps to take.
As a general rule, the existence and content of both urgent appeals and letters of allegation remain confidential until a summary of such communications and the replies received from the State concerned are included in the joint communications report of all special procedures to the Human Rights Council. The joint communications report also includes links to the original urgent appeal or letter of allegation, and – if available – to the Government's response.
b) State law and practice
The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Beliefs also receives information on state law and practice, and raises issues with a state concerned either in communications, or during a state visit. The Special Rapporteur might make recommendations in the Annual Report, or in a report on a state visit. For example, in the interim report to the UN General Assembly from July 2009 the Special Rapporteur noted that “Conscientious objection to perform military service is another issue of concern in some States. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that a growing number of States have in their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the performance of military service and replaced compulsory military service with alternative national service. However, certain domestic legislation remains problematic in terms of the eligibility to and conditions of conscientious objection. The Special Rapporteur recommends a thorough review of these laws from the perspective of their compliance with international standards and best practices.” (see http://wri-irg.org/node/20274)
Following a visit to Azerbaijan, the Special Rapporteur “urge(d) the Government to honour its commitment made before the Council of Europe and to adopt legislation on alternative service in pursuance to the provisions of its own Constitution, which guarantees such a right.” (see http://wri-irg.org/node/20254) Following a country visit to Turkmenistan, the Special Rapporteur recommended: “The Government should ensure that conscientious objectors in Turkmenistan, in particular Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse to serve in the army due to their religious beliefs, be offered an alternative civilian service which is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection. As such, the Government should also revise the Conscription and Military Service Act which refers to the possibility of being sanctioned twice for the same offence. The Special Rapporteur would like to recall that according to the principle of “ne bis in idem”, as enshrined in article 14 (7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he or she has already been convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” (see http://wri-irg.org/node/20252)
2. To which States does the mechanism apply?
All States
3. Who can submit information?
Everybody
4. When to submit information?
Information on individual cases should be submitted as soon as possible, especially in cases where an urgent action by the Special Procedure is desired.
For information on State law and practice information can be submitted at any time. It is also advisable to watch out for a visit of the Special Rapporteur to your country, and to submit information timely before a scheduled visit, and to attempt to schedule a meeting during the visit. A coalition of NGOs might have a higher chance to have a meeting during a country visit than an individual NGO so far unknown to the Special Rapporteur.
5. Are there any special rules of procedure?
Information can be submitted by post or electronically, but anonymous submissions will not be considered.
In individual cases, submissions to the Special Procedures are not a quasi-judicial procedure, which means that they are not meant to replace national or international legal procedures. Therefore, there is no need for domestic remedies to be exhausted.
Allegations of human rights violations should contain clear and concise details of the details of the case, the name and other identifying information regarding the individual victim(s), information as to the circumstances including – if available – date and place of incidents and alleged perpetrators, suspected motives, and any steps already taken at the national, regional or international level regarding the case(s).
To facilitate the submission of allegations of human rights violations, the Special Rapporteur has produced a model questionnaire, which is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Complaints.aspx.
6. What happens to the submission (how long will it take)?
The Special Rapporteur may acknowledge receipt of information from individuals and organisations if requested to do so, but they often this does not happen. The Special Rapporteur is also not required to inform those who provide information about any subsequent measures they have taken.
In case of request for an urgent action, the Quick Response Desk of the Special Procedures Division of the OHCHR coordinates the sending of communications by all mandates. Often communications are sent as joint communications of several special procedures. Governments are generally requested to provide a substantive response to urgent appeals within 30 days. Only in appropriate cases a mandate holder may decide to make such urgent appeals public by issuing a press release.
Governments are usually requested to respond to letters of allegation of human rights violations within two months.
A summary of urgent appeals and letters of allegation and responses from Governments is usually included in the joint communications report of the Special Procedures to the Human Rights Council. This will include the names of the victims, unless there are specific reasons why the names of the victims should remain confidential. In this case, explain those reasons in your initial submission.
The joint communications reports can be accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
With the introduction of the joint communications report, the Special Rapporteur does no longer add observations to urgent appeals or letters of allegations, and responses received from governments.
7. History of the use of the mechanism.
The special rapporteur for religious intolerance has the mandate most closely related to conscientious objection to military service and is the thematic mechanism to most regularly taking up issues of conscientious objection.
The Special Rapporteur has been informed of the violation of the right to conscientious objection of individual conscientious objectors in several cases, such as cases from Armenia, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, among others (see “case law”, below). The issue of conscientious objection has also been raised by the Special Rapporteur during several country visits.
In the past, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has drawn governments' attention to explicit international law (see “legal basis”), and urged governments to comply with international standards by recognising the right to conscientious objection. In several reports, the Rapporteur stressed the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Contact Details:
The complaint should be sent to:
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief
c/o Office Of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: (+41 22) 917 90 06
E-mail: freedomofreligion@ohchr.org or to urgent-action@ohchr.org (please include in the subject box: Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief)
Model Questionnaire in Englisch: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/docs/questionnaire-e.doc
Further Reading:
Interpretations
| Title | Date |
|---|---|
| Conscientious objection to military service. (Resolution 1987/46) | 10/03/1987 |
|
The Commission recognised “that conscientious objection to military service derives from principles and reasons of conscience, including profound convictions, arising from religious, ethical, moral or similar motives”, and appealed “to States to recognize that conscientious objection to military service should be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. It recommended “to States with a system of compulsory military service, where such provision has not already been made, that they consider introducing various forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, bearing in mind the experience of some States in this respect, and that they refrain from subjecting such persons to imprisonment”. |
|
| Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief | 25/11/1981 |
|
Article 1 on the Declaration states: |
|
Reports and Observations
| Title | Date |
|---|---|
| Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir. Addendum – Mission to Azerbaijan | 18/10/2006 |
|
“101. Regarding the right to conscientious objection, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government to honour its commitment made before the Council of Europe and to adopt legislation on alternative service in pursuance to the provisions of its own Constitution, which guarantees such a right.” |
|
| Armenia Communication sent on 9 June 2005 | 27/03/2006 |
|
“10. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response. She would like to draw the Government’s attention to Paragraph 5 of Resolution 1998/77 of the Commission on Human Rights, which emphasizes that States should take the necessary measures to refrain from subjecting conscientious objectors to imprisonment. |
|
| Azerbaijan: Communication sent on 17 March 2005 | 27/03/2006 |
|
“25. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the detailed response regarding Mr. Mahir Baghirov. However, she would like to refer the Government’s attention to Article 1 of Resolution 1998/77 of the Commission on Human Rights, which draws attention to the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service. This right is not, and should not be, limited to clerics and students of religious schools. She encourages the Government to review its legislation on alternative service, in accordance with international standards and best practices.” |
|
| Communication: Government: Greece, sent on 9 June 2005 | 27/03/2006 |
|
“138. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s detailed response to her communication. However, she notes with concern the strict time limits for applying for conscientious objector status . In this regard, she draws the Government’s attention to Council of Europe Recommendation 1518(2001), which invites member states to introduce into their legislation "[t]he right to be registered as a conscientious objector at any time before, during or after conscription, or performance of military service". This acknowledges that conscientious objection may develop over time, and even after a person has already participated in military training or activities.” |
|
| Republic of Korea: Communication sent on 24 May 2005 | 27/03/2006 |
|
“292. The Special Rapporteur had received reports that 1030 Jehovah’s witnesses were jailed in the Republic of Korea because they refused to do military service for reasons related to their religious belief.” (…) |
|
| Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief Addendum 1 Situation in Turkey | 11/08/2000 |
|
“139. Finally, in accordance with the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights (for example Resolution 1998/77 recognizing the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and General Commentary No. 22 (48) of 20 July 1993 of the Commission on Human Rights, and on the basis of the Turkish Constitution, which enshrines freedom of belief, the Special Rapporteur believes that regional characteristics and tensions are not sufficient to justify, in Turkey or anywhere else, a categorical rejection of conscientious objections, and recommends that legislation be adopted to guarantee the right to conscientious objections, particularly for religious beliefs.” |
|
| Communications report, South Korea | 15/02/2000 |
|
“87. The Special Rapporteur, while understanding the concerns of the Republic of Korea, wishes to recall that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, in several resolutions, such as resolution 1998/77, recognized the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and General Comment No. 22 (48) of the Human Rights Committee. It also reminded States with a system of compulsory military service, where such a provision has not already been made, of its recommendation that they provide for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of non‑combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and of not punitive nature. Moreover, it should be pointed out pursuant to article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, freedom of belief cannot be subject to limitations, on the understanding that it is distinct from freedom to manifest a belief, which can be subject to limitations as provided for by international law.” |
|
| Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief - Country visit to Greece | 07/11/1996 |
|
“40. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to resolution 1989/59 of 8 March 1989 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, reaffirmed inter alia in 1991 (resolution 1991/65 of 6 March 1991) and in 1993 (resolution 1993/84 of 10 March 1993), which recognizes "the right of everyone to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (para. 1) and which recommends to Member States "with a system of compulsory military service, where such provision has not already been made, that they introduce for conscientious objectors various forms of alternative service" (para. 3) which "should be in principle of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature" (para. 4).” |
|
| Interim report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance prepared by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights | 16/10/1997 |
|
3. The right of conscientious objection |
|
Partner Organisations
Built by
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Web Link:
Summary
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, established as a Special Procedure in 1991, under the mandate of the former UN Commission on Human Rights (replaced by the Human Rights Council in 2006), investigates cases of arbitrarily detained people worldwide. It receives information regarding alleged cases of arbitrary detention by the individuals directly concerned, their families, their representatives or NGOs, and sends urgent appeals and communications to the concerned Governments to clarify the conditions of those allegedly detained. Under this mandate the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers cases without legal basis for the detention, cases where the right to a fair trial has been so badly violated that it makes the subsequent detention invalid, and cases of prisoners of conscience.
Examples of the kind of issues the Working Group examines include:
- detention arising from a fundamental breach of human rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
- excessive time being spent on remand before being brought to trial;
- where a person is detained after they should have been released;
- house arrest.
Furthermore it conducts country visits to countries that issued an invitation and presents annual reports to the Human Rights Council.
There is an online database of documents of the Working Group at http://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/.
1. Likely results from use of mechanism
a) Individual cases
After the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has received information on cases of alleged arbitrary detentions, it might send either an urgent appeal or a letter of allegation to the government concerned. When the Working Group decides to issue an opinion on a case, a response received from a government will be forwarded to the original source for comment. These opinions are reported to the Human Rights Council and are published on the website of the Working Group at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=117 and in the online database at http://www.unwgaddatabase.org/un/.
Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are quasi-judicial, in that they are not legally binding, but are argued like a legal decision, and will be taken into account by other UN special bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee.
Urgent action
In cases in which there are sufficiently reliable allegations that a person may be detained arbitrarily and that the alleged violations may be time-sensitive in terms of involving loss of life, life-threatening situations or either imminent or ongoing damage of a very grave nature to victims in the event of the continuation of the detention, the Working Group transmit an urgent appeal to the Government. An urgent appeal does not prejudge any Opinion the Working Group might subsequently render in the case.
b) State law and practice
While the focus of the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is on individual cases, it also considers state law and practice. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention conducts at least two country visits annually, during which it will discuss issues around arbitrary detention with the government of the country. Following a country visit, the Working Group will make observations on the information received from the government, NGOs and individuals, and will make recommendations to the government.
Reports of visits are made available online at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Visits.aspx, and are submitted to the Human Rights Council.
2. To which States does the mechanism apply?
All States.
3. Who can submit information?
Everybody
4. When to submit information?
Information on individual cases should be submitted as soon as possible, especially in cases where an urgent action by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is desired.
Information on State law and practice can be submitted at any time, but is especially relevant before a planned country visit by the Working Group.
5. Special rules of procedure or advice for making a submission?
According to the revised methods of work of the Working Group, submission need to be in writing, and need to include the name and address of the person and/or organisation submitting the information.
A communication should include as a minimum:
- date of arrest
- place of detention
- formal charges, if any
- access to counsel/outside organisation/family, etc
- date of presentation to a judge, if applicable
- date and information about trial, if applicable.
The Working Group prefers to receive information using its model questionnaire, which is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Complaints.aspx.
6. What happens to the submission (how long will it take)?
After receiving information on a case of arbitrary detention, the Working Group will send a communication to the Government concerned, which will include the information that the Working Group is authorised to render an opinion on the case. The Government is requested to reply within 60 days to this letter, but can request an extension of no more than one month. A reply received by the Working Group will be forwarded to the source for comment.
Depending on the information received, the Working Group can take one of the following measures:
- if the person has been released, the case might be filed, but the Working Group reserves the right to render an opinion, whether or not the person has been released;
- if the Working Group considers that further information is required, it can keep the case pending and request further information;
- if the Working Group has sufficient information, it will render an opinion, which can either state that the detention was arbitrary, or not. Even in the absence of a State's response, the Working Group can render an opinion, if it considers the information received from the source to be sufficient.
Depending on the complexity of the case, the time it takes the Working Group to come to a final decision varies between 6 months and 24 months.
Any opinion is sent first to the Government concerned, and two weeks later to the source.
Opinions are published in an addendum to the Working Group´s annual report to the Human Rights Council, and are also available on the website of the Working Group at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Detention/Pages/Complaints.aspx and http://www.unwgaddatabase.org/.
In exceptional cases, the Working Group can reconsider an Opinion on the request of the source or the government, for example if the facts have changed or have to be considered as entirely new, so that the Working Group would come to a different opinion would it have been aware of the facts at the time. Governments can only request a review if they replied to the original allegation within the above mentioned time limit.
In an urgent case scenario the Working Group sends an urgent appeal to the Government concerned in order to ensure that the detained person’s right to life and to physical and mental integrity are respected.
The government will be urged to safeguard the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's liberty.
An urgent appeal to a Government does in no way prejudge the Working Groups final assessment of the case, unless the arbitrary character of the deprivation of liberty has already been determined.
Urgent appeals and responses received by governments will be included in the regular joint communications report of all Special Procedures to the Human Rights Council, and are available online at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.
7. History of the use of the mechanism.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has been successfully used by conscientious objectors. It's first known opinion was on the case of Turkish conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke (Opinion 36/1999), who was imprisoned repeatedly for disobeying orders. In line with the international standards at the time, the Working Group considered any detention from the second detention on as arbitrary, contrary to the principle of ne-bis-in-idem. The Turkish government requested a review of this Opinion in 2000, but the Working Group upheld its original opinion (see Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 20 December 2000).
In 2003, the Working Group rendered a similar opinion on five cases from Israel.
Following the development of the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, from 2008 on the Working Group considered any detention of a conscientious objector as arbitrary (see Opinion No 8/2008 [Colombia] and Opinion 16/2008 [Turkey]).
In its Opinion No 8/2008, the Working Group also came to the conclusion that the widespread practice of “batidas” in Colombia (raids on young people in public places) in order to establish the military status of young people and their subsequent transfer to military barracks constitutes arbitrary detention. It then raised this issue also with the Government of Colombia during its country visit from 1-10 October 2008 (see Report on the Mission to Colombia, 16 February 2009).
Contact Details:
For an individual case or cases, the communication should be sent, if possible accompanied by the model questionnaire prepared for this purpose, to:
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14, avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
facsimile: +41 22 9179006
e-mail: wgad@ohchr.org
Communications requesting the Working Group to launch an urgent appeal on humanitarian grounds should be sent to the above address, preferably by e-mail or facsimile.
Further Reading:
- Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Revised working methods, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/WGAD_RevisedMethodsofWor..., accessed 23 August 2012
Opinions and Reports
None
Partner Organisations
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System by http://co-guide.org is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/deed.en_US.
Built by
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System
Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure
Web Link:
Summary
The Complaint Procedure of the Human Rights Council is a confidential procedure to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested human rights violations. It is therefore not suitable for individual cases except when they are representative of a pattern of reliably attested human rights violations.
The Complaint Procedure is of confidential nature and the lodging of communications should not be made public. While the complainant might be informed whether a complaint has been taken up by the procedure, the steps taken and the outcome of the complaint remain confidential, unless the Human Rights Council decides to consider the complaint in public.
The Complaint Procedure was introduced by resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council - UN Human Rights Council: Institution Building – from 18 June 2007, and replaces the former 1503 procedure.
1. Likely results from use of mechanism
If a complaint is taken up after initial screening by the Working Group on Communications, the allegation of human rights violations will be transmitted to the State concerned. A Working Group of the Human Rights Council (the Working Group on Situations) will then consider the complaint and the reply received from the State, and make a recommendation to the Human Rights Council, which will consider the report of the Working Group in a confidential manner, unless the Council decides otherwise.
The Human Rights Council can take one of the following measures:
- to discontinue considering the situation, if no further action is needed;
- to keep the situation under review, and request further information from the State concerned;
- to keep the situation under review and appoint an independent expert to monitor the situation and report back to the Council;
- to discontinue reviewing the situation under the confidential complaint procedure in order to take up a public consideration;
- to recommend to the OHCHR to assist the State concerned.
2. To which States does the mechanism apply?
All States.
3. Who can submit information?
A complaint through the Complaint Procedure can be lodged by Individuals as well as NGOs with or without consultative status to the Human Rights Council. Anonymous complaints can however not be considered.
4. When to submit information?
A complaint can be lodged at any time. However, domestic remedies have to be exhausted, unless such remedies would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged. The complaint should also not refer to a pattern of human rights violations already being dealt with by one of the Special Procedures, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure.
5. Special rules of procedure or advice for making a submission?
The Complaint Procedure can only process complaints submitted in writing. It is advisable to limit the complaint to 10-15 pages to which additional information may be submitted at a later stage.
As anonymous complaints cannot be admitted it is crucial to include identification of the person(s) or organisation(s) submitting the communication (this information will be kept confidential, if requested).
Complaints submitted to the Complaint Procedure should include a description of the relevant facts in as much detail as possible, providing names of alleged victims, dates, location and other evidence.
They should also include the purpose of the complaint and the rights allegedly violated.
All communications found to be manifestly ill-founded or anonymous will be discarded.
6. What happens to the submission (how long will it take)?
After an initial screening and a decision on the admissibility of a complaint by the Working Group on Communications, a request for information will be sent to the State concerned, which shall reply no later than three months after the request has been made. If necessary, this deadline may however be extended.
The Working Group on Situation will then prepare a report to the Human Rights Council, usually in the form of a draft resolution or decision on the situation referred to in the complaint. It may also decide to keep the situation under review and request further information.
The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures to take in a confidential manner as needed, but at least once a year. As a general rule, the period of time between the transmission of the complaint to the State concerned and consideration by the Council shall not exceed 24 months.
All material provided by individuals as well as the replies by the Governments remain of confidential nature during and after the consideration by the Complaint Procedure. This also applies to decisions taken at the various stages of the procedure.
Therefore it is important to do not publicly state that you have submitted a case to the Complaint Procedure.
7. History of the use of the mechanism.
To the knowledge of the authors, this mechanism has not yet been used for the issue of conscientious objection. However, it might have influenced the decision of the Human Rights Council to appoint a Special Rapporteur on Eritrea in 2012.
Contact Details:
Communications intended for handling under the Council Complaint Procedure may be addressed to:
Human Rights Council and Treaties Division
Complaint Procedure
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: (41 22) 917 90 11
E-mail: CP@ohchr.org
Further Reading:
- Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: United Nations Human Rights Council. Complaint Procedure, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/Complaint.aspx, accessed 24 August 2012
- Council resolution 5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, 18 June 2007, para 85-109, http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_5_1.doc
- ISHR and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES): A New Chapter for Human Rights: Chapter 5 – Complaints Procedure, 2006, http://olddoc.ishr.ch/handbook/Chpt5.pdf
Decisions
None
Partner Organisations
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System by http://co-guide.org is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/deed.en_US.
Built by
Partner Organisations
A Conscientious Objector's Guide to the International Human Rights System by http://co-guide.org is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/deed.en_US.
Built by