States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives
States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives
States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The second type <strong>of</strong> principle established by the ICCPR, which is by<br />
implication non‐derogable although not expressly set out in<br />
Article 4 (2), are those provided <strong>for</strong> in Article 5. Article 5 (1)<br />
prevents any State Party, group or person from engaging in any<br />
activity aimed at the destruction <strong>of</strong> any right recognised by the<br />
ICCPR, or limiting any right to a greater extent than is provided <strong>for</strong><br />
in the ICCPR. Article 5 (2) also contains the prohibition on using<br />
any provision <strong>of</strong> the ICCPR as a pretext <strong>for</strong> limiting or derogating<br />
from human rights that are guaranteed, by either municipal law or<br />
other treaty, to a greater extent than the ICCPR. Implicit is also the<br />
principle that permitted restrictions cannot be used <strong>for</strong> any other<br />
purpose than the one prescribed by the ICCPR.<br />
Thirdly, the provisions relating to the implementation machinery<br />
are also deemed to be non‐derogable. As we have seen, the ICCPR<br />
implementation machinery, with their dependence on State Party<br />
co‐operation, may seem weak enough. But to allow <strong>States</strong> to<br />
derogate from those provisions citing a state <strong>of</strong> emergency would<br />
be to totally defeat the checks and oversight provided by these<br />
mechanisms. Thus, it is essential to the scheme <strong>of</strong> the ICCPR that<br />
these provisions be regarded as non‐derogable.<br />
The current practice <strong>of</strong> the Human Rights Committee devotes<br />
serious attention to the principle <strong>of</strong> non‐derogation, its scope,<br />
nature and application. In addition to the three areas considered<br />
above, General Comment No. 29, has now added a plethora <strong>of</strong><br />
other principles and rights <strong>of</strong> international law that it would<br />
consider to be non‐derogable. BrieLly, these are (not being a<br />
conclusive list):<br />
• Crimes against humanity (para.12, and <strong>for</strong> jurisdictional<br />
purposes the Committee would take into account the Rome<br />
157