States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

Lanka, it should be held accountable under the normal standards
of the ICCPR. 240 However, the Committee as a whole recommended
that Sri Lanka duly declare and notify its state of emergency to
other State Parties, which it did in 1984. 241 Unfortunately, this also
was found to be too brief and without the adequate information
required by Article 4 (3). 242
With regard to current practice, the Human Rights Committee’s
General Comment No. 29 states:
“Such notiLication is essential not only for the discharge of
the Committee’s functions, in particular in assessing
whether the measures taken by the State party were
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, but
also to permit other States parties to monitor compliance
with the provisions of the Covenant. In view of the
summary character of many of the notiLications received
in the past, the Committee emphasizes that the
notiKication
 by
 States
 parties
 should
 include
 full
information
 about
 the
 measures
 taken
 and
 a
 clear
explanation
 of
 the
 reasons
 for
 them,
 with
 full
documentation
 attached
 regarding
 their
 law. Additional
notiKications
 are
 required
 if
 the
 State
 party
 subsequently
takes
 further
 measures
 under
 article
 4,
 for
 instance
 by
extending
 the
 duration
 of
 a
 state
 of
 emergency.
 The
requirement
 of
 immediate
 notiKication
 applies
 equally
 in
240
UN Human Rights Committee (1983), Report of Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/SR.
473 (1983)
241
Sri Lanka (report reviewed on 3 rd November 1983; notiLication, 21 st
May 1984; see also A/39/40, p.25, para.123
242
UN Human Rights Committee, Human
Rights:
Status
of
International
Instruments: notice of derogation by Sri Lanka, 21 st May 1984
151