Based on the reasons given above, it is submitted that the provisions regarding preventive detention in the States are not compatible with the provisions of the ICCPR. Instead, the legal standards set out in the States fall short of the standards expected by the ICCPR. This is the case both in theory and in practice.
There is no doubt that if the States were to be State parties of the ICCPR, their present laws regarding preventive detention cannot remain.
While there have been calls for the States to repeal their respective ISA, it is observed that only 2 major provisions in the ISA provide for preventive detention – the first is under section 73 which can be carried out by the police while the second is under section 8 which can be ordered by the Minister. SUHAKAM noted that “…the majority of the provisions that are contained in the ISA create criminal offences that are to be administered under the normal penal system and do not thus necessarily infringe human rights principles per se” . As such, it may be argued that there may not be a need to repeal the entire Act just because of these 2 offending provisions and those related to them.
Whatever the decision is, it is submitted that the new law (or the amended law as the case may be) must have the following provisions:-
(a) Clear definition as to when preventive detention can be carried out
(i) The discretion must not be arbitrary.
That means that it must be appropriate, just and predictable.
This can be achieved if the grounds of detention are severely limited to matters where the general laws of the land cannot deal with.
The grounds must be stated clearly and in unambiguous terms in the act.
In view of the serious consequences of an order for preventive detention, the discretion should not be extended to any police officers of any rank.
The discretion to detain further than 24 hours should rest with a court of law. As such, the detainee must be brought before a competent court which will have the power to either order an extension or a release. Extensions must be limited and reasonable. It is submitted that 1 week is reasonable and if the police requires more time to investigate, they should go back to the court and explain why they need to do so.
It must be used sparingly and only at the last resort
(ii) The discretion must be in compliance with the standards of lawfulness in the ICCPR. It is submitted that there should be a provision in the act which provides that in matters where conflict and/or inconsistencies may arise between the provisions of the act and the ICCPR, the latter should prevail.
(b) The right to be informed of reasons of detention must be guaranteed
The act should provide details on what must be informed. Basically, sufficient information must be given so that the detainee will understand why he is being detained and be able to instruct his solicitors competently if such grounds are not true
While it is recognised that in certain circumstances, it may not be practicably possible to inform the detainee of the grounds and reasons at the time of arrest, nevertheless, it must be informed as soon as possible.
(c) The right to take proceedings before a Court must be guaranteed
Such right must not only be made available to the detainee but it must be communicated to him.
This includes the right to consult his solicitor at any time after his arrest
Proceedings must be taken before a court which has the jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of the detention. This jurisdiction shall include the jurisdiction to rule on both procedural mattes as well as on the substantive issues.
The court must also have the power to order the release of the detainee if it finds the detention to be indeed unlawful
The courts shall also be given the freedom to consider the legality of the exercise of discretion by the state in an objective and subjective manner
Proceedings must be heard and disposed off in an urgent manner.
In order not to make a mockery of a court’s decision to order the release of a detainee, there should be a restriction on rearrest taking place immediately after a detainee is released by the court.
(d) Treatment of persons detained:-
(i) There shall be provisions on the places of detention.
Such places must be specifically meant for these detainees.
They should not be put in prison or held together with convicted prisoners
These detention centres must provide the necessities
They shall allow periodic visitations by recognised Human Rights organisations, be it governmental or non-governmental
(ii) There shall be provisions guaranteeing the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person as well as the right not to be subject to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To ensure that these rights are guaranteed, there should also be provisions on:-
Disallowing incommunicado detention
Allowing the detainee to see his lawyer and family members in private on a regular basis for a reasonable amount of time
Disallowing prolonged solitary confinement
The right to lodge complaint against maltreatment must be guaranteed and communicated to the detainees
There should be provisions which obligates the state to investigate such complaints thoroughly, fairly and without delay
Punishment on those who violate these rights
There should be provisions regarding training, education and “refresher courses” for those personnel who have authority in the detention centres.
(e) There should be provisions allowing for compensation for unlawful detention
While having these laws in place is not a guarantee that abuses and violations of human rights will not take place, it is an improvement from the previous situation where the rights were not protected. Once these provisions are in place, the human rights violations which have been taking place can be curbed. After all, the ICCPR does not prohibit preventive detention completely. It merely provides that the human rights of those detained be respected and upheld.
It is submitted that the ISA has become such a handy tool for the executive in the States to deal with urgent matters involving national security that it is difficult for the States to limit its scope.
But the time has come where the States will have to realise that the laws on preventive detention which infringes the basic rights of the detainees can no longer stand. Further, the general laws of the land can easily be used to protect the national security through the normal due process of law and through the judiciary. There can surely be no good reason to retain laws which do not respect basic human rights but instead facilitates the violation of the same.
Bibliography
STATUTES
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).
For text, see P. R. Ghandhi, Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents (Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition 2002) pg 215
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
For text, see I. Brownlie and G.S. Goodwin-Gill, Basic Documents on Human Rights, (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2002), pg 182.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
For text, see P. R. Ghandhi, Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents (Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition 2002) pg 119
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
For text, see I. Brownlie and G.S. Goodwin-Gill, Basic Documents on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2002), pg 18.
Federal Constitution of Malaysia
Constitution of Singapore
Malaysia’s Lockup Rules, 1953
Malaysia’s Internal Security Act 1960
Malaysia’s Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960
Singapore’s Internal Security Act 1960
Singaporean Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960
DOCUMENTS
General Comment No. 8: Right to liberty and security of persons (Art. 9) : . 30/06/82
General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7) : . 10/03/92
General Comment No. 21 Replaces general comment 9 concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty (Art. 10) : . 10/04/92
RESEARCH
Books
A. Harding, J. Hatchard (Eds) - Preventive Detention and Security Law. Dordrecht ; London : M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1993
Chee Soon Juar - To Be Free – Stories from Asia’s Struggle Against Oppression. Monash Asia Institute 1998
Damien Kingsbury & Greg Barton (Eds) – Difference and Tolerance – Human Rights Issues in South East Asia. Deakin University Press 1994
Eide & Others (Eds) – The Universal Declaration on Human Rights – A Commentary. Scandinavian University Press 1992
James T.H. Tang (Ed) – Human Rights & International Relations in the Asia-Pacific Regions. Cassell Publishers Limited 1995
Jeffrey Jowell & Jonathan Cooper – Understanding Human Rights Principles. Hart Publishing 2001
Nigel Rodley – The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law (2nd Ed). Oxford Univeristy Press 1999
Philip J. Eldridge – The Politics of Human Rights in South East Asia. Routledge 2002
S. Frankowski, D. Shelton (Eds) - Preventive Detention – A Comparative and International Law Perspective. Matinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers
Malaysian Human Rights Report 2001 – Civil and Political Rights. SUARAM Komunikasi
Silencing All Critics – Human Rights Violations in Singapore. New York : Asia Watch, 1990
Tangled Web – Dissent, Deterrence and the 27 October 1987 Crackdown in Malaysia. Haymarket : CARPA, 1988
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – Study of the Right of Everyone To Be Free From Arbitrary Arrest, Detention and Exile. New York : United Nations, [2000]
Websites
Convicted Before Trial - Indefinite Detention Under Malaysia’s Emergency Ordinance
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/malaysia0806/
Detained Without Trial – Abuse of the ISA Detainees In Malaysia
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/malaysia0905/1.htm
HRW – Overview of Human Rights Issues in Malaysia (December 2005)
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/malays12257_txt.htm
Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers
http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/CHAPTER_5.pdf
ISA detainee talks about PAP crookedness
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlemichaelfernandez.html
Islamic Human Rights Commission - Briefing: Anti-Terrorism Legislation in South East Asia
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=973
Malaysia: End Political Arrests
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/04/malaysia0430.htm
Malaysia's fearsome security law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1420739.stm
Malaysia’s ISA: No limits
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF70.htm
Malaysia's Internal Security Act and Suppression of Political Dissent
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/malaysia-bck-0513.htm
Malaysia: Release Political Detainees
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/12/malays237.htm
Malaysia: The Internal Security Act,
http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA280062003?open&of=ENG-315
National Human Rights Society (Malaysia) – AI Report
http://www.hakam.org/isaamnesty.htm
Review of the Internal Security Act
http://www.suhakam.org.my/docs/document_resource/isa.pdf
The Anti-ISA Campaign Page
http://www.freeanwar.net/index3.htm
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (and the many links therein)
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/detention/index.htm
Cases
UK
Liversidge v Anderson (1942) AC 206
Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne (1951) AC 66
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) AC 147, HL
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster [1980] AC 952
Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1983] 2 WLR 321
Malaysia
Aminah v Superintendent Of Prisons, Pengkalan Chepa, Kelantan [1968] 1 MLJ 92
Assa Singh v Menteri Besar, Johore [1969] 2 MLJ 30
Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri Malaysia (1969) 2 MLJ 129
Ooi Ah Phua v Officer-in-Charge of Investigations, Kedah/Perlis (1975) 1 MLJ 93
Yeap Hock Seng v Minister of Home Affairs (1975) 2 MLJ 279
PE Long @ Jimmy (1976) 2 MLJ 133
Re Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (1977) 2 MLJ 108
Mak Sik Kwong (No. 2) (1977) 2 MLJ 175
Teh Cheng Poh v. Public Prosecutor (1979) 1 MLJ 50
Theresa Lim Chin Chin v. Inspector-General of Police (1988) 1 MLJ 293
Karpal Singh v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 MLJ 468
Yit Hon Kit v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 2 MLJ 638
Lim Guan Eng v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia (1988) 3 MLJ 323
Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia v Karpal Singh (1988) 3 MLJ 29
Minister of Home Affairs v Jamaluddin bin Othman (1989) 1 SCR 311
Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara and another application [2001] 2 MLJ 689
Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara and another application (No. 4) [2001] 6 MLJ 198
Gurcharan Singh a/l Bachittar Singh v. Penguasa, Tempat Tahanan Perlindungan Kamunting, Taiping (2002) 4 MLJ 255
Mohamad Ezam Bin Mohd Noor v. Ketua Polis Negara (2002) 4 MLJ 449
Abdul Razak bin Baharudin v. Ketua Polis Negara [2006] 1 MLJ 320
Sejahratul Dursina @ Chomel bte Abdullah v Kerajaan Malaysia [2006] 1 MLJ 405
Yazid bin Sufaat v. Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya Malaysia [2006] 3 MLJ 587
Singapore
Lim Hock Siew & Ors v. Minister of Interior and Defence [1965 - 1968] 1 SLR 697
Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore (1971) 1 SLR 508
Lau Lek Eng & Ors v. Minister of Home Affairs & Anor [1972 - 1974] 1 SLR 300
Wee Toon Lip & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor [1972 - 1974] 1 SLR 303
Lau Seng Poh v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor (1985) 1 SLR 132
Ch’ng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1988] 1 SLR 132
De Souza v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 SLR 517
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 SLR 676
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1989) 1 SLR 499
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1990) 1 SLR 40
Vincent Cheng v. Minister of Home Affairs [1990] 1 SLR 190
Human Rights Committee
Adolfo Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay Communication No. 43/1979
David Alberto Cámpora Schweizer v. Uruguay, Communication No. 66/1980
M.A. Estrella v. Uruguay - Communication No. 74/1980
Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato and Hugo Haroldo Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay Communication No. 84/1981
Luyeye Magana ex-Philibert v. Zaire Communication No. 90/1981
T. Gómez de Voituret v. Uruguay Communication No. 109/1981
Monja Jaona v. Madagascar Communication No. 132/1982
Eric Hammel v. Madagascar Communication No. 155/1983
G. Campbell v. Jamaica Communication No. 248/1987
C. Linton v. Jamaica - Communication No. 255/1987
Antti Vuolanne v. Finland, Communication No. 265/1987
Mario Torres v. Finland Communication No. 291/1988
Hugo van Alphen v. the Netherlands Communication No. 305/1988
H. Kalenga v. Zambia - Communication No. 326/1988
R. Zelaya Blanco v. Nicaragua - Communication No. 328/1988
Berry v Jamaica Communication No. 330/1988
Stephens v Jamaica Communication No. 373/1989
Essono Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea Communication No. 414/1990
Y. El-Megreisi v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Communication No. 440/1990
J. Villacnés Ortega v. Ecuador - Communication No. 481/1991
A. W. Mukong v. Cameroon Communication No. 458/1991
Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain Communication No. 526/1993
H. Elahie v. Trinidad and Tobago - Communication No. 533/1993
A v. Australia Communication. No. 560/1993
R. Espinoza de Polay v. Peru Communication No. 577/1994
A. Leehong v. Jamaica - Communication No. 613/1995
M. Freemantle v. Jamaica - Communication No. 625/1995
Arhuacos v. Colombia - Communication No. 612/1995
Clifford McLawrence v. Jamaica Communication no. 702/1996
M. Robinson v. Jamaica - Communication No. 731/1996
Deon McTaggart v. Jamaica Communication No. 749/1997
R. S. Antonaccio v. Uruguay Communication No. R.14/63
European Court of Human Rights
Case of Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom Judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).
For text, see P. R. Ghandhi, Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents (Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition 2002) pg 215
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
For text, see I. Brownlie and G.S. Goodwin-Gill, Basic Documents on Human Rights, (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2002), pg 182.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
For text, see P. R. Ghandhi, Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents (Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition 2002) pg 119
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
For text, see I. Brownlie and G.S. Goodwin-Gill, Basic Documents on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2002), pg 18.
Federal Constitution of Malaysia
Constitution of Singapore
Malaysia’s Lockup Rules, 1953
Malaysia’s Internal Security Act 1960
Malaysia’s Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960
Singapore’s Internal Security Act 1960
Singaporean Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960
DOCUMENTS
General Comment No. 8: Right to liberty and security of persons (Art. 9) : . 30/06/82
General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7) : . 10/03/92
General Comment No. 21 Replaces general comment 9 concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty (Art. 10) : . 10/04/92
RESEARCH
Books
A. Harding, J. Hatchard (Eds) - Preventive Detention and Security Law. Dordrecht ; London : M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1993
Chee Soon Juar - To Be Free – Stories from Asia’s Struggle Against Oppression. Monash Asia Institute 1998
Damien Kingsbury & Greg Barton (Eds) – Difference and Tolerance – Human Rights Issues in South East Asia. Deakin University Press 1994
Eide & Others (Eds) – The Universal Declaration on Human Rights – A Commentary. Scandinavian University Press 1992
James T.H. Tang (Ed) – Human Rights & International Relations in the Asia-Pacific Regions. Cassell Publishers Limited 1995
Jeffrey Jowell & Jonathan Cooper – Understanding Human Rights Principles. Hart Publishing 2001
Nigel Rodley – The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law (2nd Ed). Oxford Univeristy Press 1999
Philip J. Eldridge – The Politics of Human Rights in South East Asia. Routledge 2002
S. Frankowski, D. Shelton (Eds) - Preventive Detention – A Comparative and International Law Perspective. Matinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers
Malaysian Human Rights Report 2001 – Civil and Political Rights. SUARAM Komunikasi
Silencing All Critics – Human Rights Violations in Singapore. New York : Asia Watch, 1990
Tangled Web – Dissent, Deterrence and the 27 October 1987 Crackdown in Malaysia. Haymarket : CARPA, 1988
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – Study of the Right of Everyone To Be Free From Arbitrary Arrest, Detention and Exile. New York : United Nations, [2000]
Websites
Convicted Before Trial - Indefinite Detention Under Malaysia’s Emergency Ordinance
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/malaysia0806/
Detained Without Trial – Abuse of the ISA Detainees In Malaysia
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/malaysia0905/1.htm
HRW – Overview of Human Rights Issues in Malaysia (December 2005)
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/malays12257_txt.htm
Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers
http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/CHAPTER_5.pdf
ISA detainee talks about PAP crookedness
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlemichaelfernandez.html
Islamic Human Rights Commission - Briefing: Anti-Terrorism Legislation in South East Asia
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=973
Malaysia: End Political Arrests
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/04/malaysia0430.htm
Malaysia's fearsome security law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1420739.stm
Malaysia’s ISA: No limits
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF70.htm
Malaysia's Internal Security Act and Suppression of Political Dissent
Human Rights Watch Publication
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/malaysia-bck-0513.htm
Malaysia: Release Political Detainees
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/12/malays237.htm
Malaysia: The Internal Security Act,
http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA280062003?open&of=ENG-315
National Human Rights Society (Malaysia) – AI Report
http://www.hakam.org/isaamnesty.htm
Review of the Internal Security Act
http://www.suhakam.org.my/docs/document_resource/isa.pdf
The Anti-ISA Campaign Page
http://www.freeanwar.net/index3.htm
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (and the many links therein)
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/detention/index.htm
Cases
UK
Liversidge v Anderson (1942) AC 206
Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne (1951) AC 66
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) AC 147, HL
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster [1980] AC 952
Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1983] 2 WLR 321
Malaysia
Aminah v Superintendent Of Prisons, Pengkalan Chepa, Kelantan [1968] 1 MLJ 92
Assa Singh v Menteri Besar, Johore [1969] 2 MLJ 30
Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri Malaysia (1969) 2 MLJ 129
Ooi Ah Phua v Officer-in-Charge of Investigations, Kedah/Perlis (1975) 1 MLJ 93
Yeap Hock Seng v Minister of Home Affairs (1975) 2 MLJ 279
PE Long @ Jimmy (1976) 2 MLJ 133
Re Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (1977) 2 MLJ 108
Mak Sik Kwong (No. 2) (1977) 2 MLJ 175
Teh Cheng Poh v. Public Prosecutor (1979) 1 MLJ 50
Theresa Lim Chin Chin v. Inspector-General of Police (1988) 1 MLJ 293
Karpal Singh v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 MLJ 468
Yit Hon Kit v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 2 MLJ 638
Lim Guan Eng v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia (1988) 3 MLJ 323
Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia v Karpal Singh (1988) 3 MLJ 29
Minister of Home Affairs v Jamaluddin bin Othman (1989) 1 SCR 311
Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara and another application [2001] 2 MLJ 689
Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara and another application (No. 4) [2001] 6 MLJ 198
Gurcharan Singh a/l Bachittar Singh v. Penguasa, Tempat Tahanan Perlindungan Kamunting, Taiping (2002) 4 MLJ 255
Mohamad Ezam Bin Mohd Noor v. Ketua Polis Negara (2002) 4 MLJ 449
Abdul Razak bin Baharudin v. Ketua Polis Negara [2006] 1 MLJ 320
Sejahratul Dursina @ Chomel bte Abdullah v Kerajaan Malaysia [2006] 1 MLJ 405
Yazid bin Sufaat v. Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya Malaysia [2006] 3 MLJ 587
Singapore
Lim Hock Siew & Ors v. Minister of Interior and Defence [1965 - 1968] 1 SLR 697
Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore (1971) 1 SLR 508
Lau Lek Eng & Ors v. Minister of Home Affairs & Anor [1972 - 1974] 1 SLR 300
Wee Toon Lip & Ors v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor [1972 - 1974] 1 SLR 303
Lau Seng Poh v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor (1985) 1 SLR 132
Ch’ng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1988] 1 SLR 132
De Souza v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 SLR 517
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1988) 1 SLR 676
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1989) 1 SLR 499
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs (1990) 1 SLR 40
Vincent Cheng v. Minister of Home Affairs [1990] 1 SLR 190
Human Rights Committee
Adolfo Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay Communication No. 43/1979
David Alberto Cámpora Schweizer v. Uruguay, Communication No. 66/1980
M.A. Estrella v. Uruguay - Communication No. 74/1980
Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato and Hugo Haroldo Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay Communication No. 84/1981
Luyeye Magana ex-Philibert v. Zaire Communication No. 90/1981
T. Gómez de Voituret v. Uruguay Communication No. 109/1981
Monja Jaona v. Madagascar Communication No. 132/1982
Eric Hammel v. Madagascar Communication No. 155/1983
G. Campbell v. Jamaica Communication No. 248/1987
C. Linton v. Jamaica - Communication No. 255/1987
Antti Vuolanne v. Finland, Communication No. 265/1987
Mario Torres v. Finland Communication No. 291/1988
Hugo van Alphen v. the Netherlands Communication No. 305/1988
H. Kalenga v. Zambia - Communication No. 326/1988
R. Zelaya Blanco v. Nicaragua - Communication No. 328/1988
Berry v Jamaica Communication No. 330/1988
Stephens v Jamaica Communication No. 373/1989
Essono Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea Communication No. 414/1990
Y. El-Megreisi v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - Communication No. 440/1990
J. Villacnés Ortega v. Ecuador - Communication No. 481/1991
A. W. Mukong v. Cameroon Communication No. 458/1991
Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain Communication No. 526/1993
H. Elahie v. Trinidad and Tobago - Communication No. 533/1993
A v. Australia Communication. No. 560/1993
R. Espinoza de Polay v. Peru Communication No. 577/1994
A. Leehong v. Jamaica - Communication No. 613/1995
M. Freemantle v. Jamaica - Communication No. 625/1995
Arhuacos v. Colombia - Communication No. 612/1995
Clifford McLawrence v. Jamaica Communication no. 702/1996
M. Robinson v. Jamaica - Communication No. 731/1996
Deon McTaggart v. Jamaica Communication No. 749/1997
R. S. Antonaccio v. Uruguay Communication No. R.14/63
European Court of Human Rights
Case of Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom Judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
