13.07.2015 Views

individual communication to the united nations ... - Community Law

individual communication to the united nations ... - Community Law

individual communication to the united nations ... - Community Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

17Article 2 of <strong>the</strong> ICCPR requires a State party <strong>to</strong> ensure effective remedies for humanrights abuses and enforcement of <strong>the</strong>se remedies. The Committee noted <strong>the</strong> followingin its General Comment 31:Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that States Parties make reparation <strong>to</strong> <strong>individual</strong>swhose Covenant rights have been violated. Without reparation <strong>to</strong> <strong>individual</strong>s whoseCovenant rights have been violated, <strong>the</strong> obligation <strong>to</strong> provide an effective remedy,which is central <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficacy of article 2, paragraph 3, is not discharged. In addition<strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> explicit reparation required by articles 9, paragraph 5, and 14, paragraph 6, <strong>the</strong>Committee considers that <strong>the</strong> Covenant generally entails appropriate compensation.The Committee notes that, where appropriate, reparation can involve restitution,rehabilitation and measures of satisfaction, such as public apologies, publicmemorials, guarantees of non-repetition and changes in relevant laws and practices,as well as bringing <strong>to</strong> justice <strong>the</strong> perpetra<strong>to</strong>rs of human rights violations.Bringing <strong>to</strong> Justice <strong>the</strong> Perpetra<strong>to</strong>rs of Human Rights Abuses: Unlawful EvictionsIt is submitted that an effective remedy <strong>to</strong> a breach of Articles 17 and 24 involving anunlawful eviction requires <strong>the</strong> breach <strong>to</strong> be made a criminal offence.Criminal penalties are intended <strong>to</strong> operate in several ways that are relevant <strong>to</strong> humanrights protections:To send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable;To provide specific and general deterrence against future behaviour;To protect <strong>the</strong> community from <strong>the</strong> offender; andTo enable rehabilitation of <strong>the</strong> offender.Failure <strong>to</strong> prosecute serious human rights abuses, such as <strong>the</strong> unlawful eviction of <strong>the</strong>Author, undermines <strong>the</strong> capacity of <strong>the</strong> State <strong>to</strong> effectively deter, punish andrehabilitate offenders and permits <strong>the</strong> State <strong>to</strong> escape any responsibility <strong>to</strong> investigateand resolve <strong>the</strong>se grave human rights breaches. The failure <strong>to</strong> criminalise unlawfulevictions undermines <strong>the</strong> promise of <strong>the</strong> State <strong>to</strong> protect its citizens from arbitrary andunlawful interferences with a person‟s home - protections guaranteed under <strong>the</strong>ICCPR. In M.C v Bulgaria Application no. 39272/98 (4 December 2003), <strong>the</strong>European Court found that <strong>the</strong> State had an obligation <strong>to</strong> provide an effective legalframework by enacting criminal-law provisions <strong>to</strong> effectively investigate and punishrape. The Author submits that a similar obligation on <strong>the</strong> State exists <strong>to</strong> provide aneffective and impartial framework <strong>to</strong> investigate and punish unlawful evictions ando<strong>the</strong>r serious breaches of <strong>the</strong> right <strong>to</strong> privacy as well as respect for <strong>the</strong> family and <strong>the</strong>rights of children.Article 171. No one shall be subjected <strong>to</strong> arbitrary or unlawful interference with hisprivacy, family, or correspondence, nor <strong>to</strong> unlawful attacks on his honour andreputation.Ashling Gandy v Australia, Individual Communication <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Human Rights Committee

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!