|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nisuke Ando (Japan)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Vojin Dimitrijevic (Yugoslavia), Mr. Omran El
Shafei (Egypt), Mr. Bertill Wennergren (Sweden)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Francisco Jose Aguilar Urbina (Costa Rica)
MEMBERS: Mr. Marco Tulio Bruni Celli (Venezuela), Miss Christine
Chanet (France), Ms. Elizabeth Evatt (Australia), Mr. Janos Fodor
(Hungary), Mr. Laurel B. Francis (Jamaica), Mr. Kurt Herndl
(Austria), Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom), Mr. Rajsoomer
Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Andreas V. Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Birame
Ndiaye (Senegal), Mr. Fausto Pocar (Italy), Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo
(Ecuador), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan)
At the forty-ninth session (1273rd meeting), held on 25 October
1993, the Chairperson informed the Committee of the death of one of
its members, Mr. Janos Fodor (Hungary).
All the members attended the forty-ninth session. |
|
|
PermaLink: |
https://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1993.11.03_ECW_v_Netherlands.htm |
|
|
Citation: |
E. C. W. v. Neth., Comm. 524/1992,
U.N. Doc. A/49/40, Vol. II, at 346 (HRC 1993) |
Publications: |
Report of the Human Rights
Committee, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/49/40,
Part II, Annex X, sect. V, at 346 (Sep.21, 1994) |
|
|
|
1. The author of the
communication (dated 22 October 1992) is E.C.W., a medical doctor, residing
in The Hague, the Netherlands. He claims to be a victim of a violation of
articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. He is represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the author:
2.1 On 1 June and again on 6 July 1987, the author participated in a
sit-down demonstration on a road leading to the Woensdrecht military base,
to protest the preparation for the deployment of cruise missiles on that
base. On both occasions, the author was arrested and charged with the
offence of obstructing the free flow of traffic on a public road. On 11
February and again on 7 April 1988, the Bergen op Zoom Magistrate's Court (Kantonrechter)
found him guilty as charged; he was fined f 51,- and f 120,- respectively.
2.2 The author appealed the judgments; on 17 October 1988, the Breda Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)
rejected the appeals against conviction, but decided not to impose a
penalty. The author then appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), arguing
that his convictions should be quashed, since he had acted out of conscience
and under necessity. The Supreme Court, on 30 January 1990, rejected the
appeals, stating that the absence of legal means to protest the deployment
of the cruise missiles had not been shown, and that the Breda Court
therefore had lawfully rejected the author's appeal on the ground of
necessity.
The complaint:
3. The author claims that he had no choice but to protest by all possible
means against the deployment of cruise missiles on the Woensdrecht base. He
argues that the possession of nuclear weapons and the preparation for the
use of nuclear weapons violates public international law and amounts to a
crime against peace and a conspiracy to commit genocide. In this context, he
submits that the Dutch military strategy violates not only international
norms of humanitarian law, but also articles 6 and 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee:
4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.
4.2 The Committee notes that the author claims that, because the Dutch
military strategy allegedly violates articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, he
should not have been convicted for violating the law while protesting the
deployment of cruise missiles. In this context, the Committee refers to its
jurisprudence in communication No. 429/1990 FN1, where it observed that the
procedure laid down in the Optional Protocol was not designed for conducting
public debate over matters of public policy, such as support for disarmament
and issues concerning nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN1]
E.W. v. the Netherlands , declared inadmissible on 8 April 1993.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Moreover, before the Committee can examine a communication, the author
must substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims that his rights
have been violated. In the present case, the Committee considers that the
author's conviction for obstructing the free flow of traffic on a public
road, cannot be seen as raising issues under articles 6 and 7 of the
Covenant. The communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the
Optional Protocol.
5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) that the communication is inadmissible;
(b) that this decision shall be communicated to the author and to his
counsel, and for information, to the State party. |
|