tence (Art. 1 (2)). Those rights are not justiciable in the view of the Human Rights Committee
(HRC).100 Among the rights of individuals are the right to legal recourse when their rights have
been violated (Art. 14), even if the violator was acting in an official capacity, the right to life
(Art. 6), the right to liberty and freedom of movement (Art. 12), the right to equality before the
law (Art. 26), the right to be presumed innocent till proven guilty (Art. 15), freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion (Art. 18), freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19), and freedom of
assembly and association (Art. 21). The Covenant prohibits discrimination based on race, sex,
color, national origin, or language (Art. 26). It also restricts the death penalty to the most serious
crimes, guarantees condemned people the right to appeal for commutation to a lesser penalty,
and forbids the death penalty entirely for people under 18 years of age at the time of the commis-
sion of the crime (Art. 6 (2) and (5)). In Art. 27, it protects persons belonging to ethnic, religious
or linguistic minorities, by granting the rights, in community with the other members of the
group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own
language.101 We thus find rights with strong public or club good character, especially Art. 27
CCPR.
For the purpose of the article, the admissibility ratione personae is of primary interest.102 Art. 1
of the FOP recognizes the competence of the HRC to receive and consider “communications
from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation...”. The word-
ing of the FOP thus only recognizes individual complaints.103 The victim cannot be a legal per-
son,104 or a political party,105 or an NGO (on its own behalf).106 NGO communications are only
permitted if the organization acts as a representative on behalf of an individual victim with his or
100 While the HRC has consistently reaffirmed self-determination as a right of all peoples, it has declined to
receive individual complaints of violations of Art. 1. Self-determination is not a right cognizable under the
FOP as the HRC stated in General Comment No. 23, A/49/40, Vol. I (1994), Annex V (p. 107-110);
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, at para 3.1. See for an overview on self-determination in international law, Anne
F. Bayefsky, Self-Determination in International Law, 2000, The Hague.
101 See Gaetano Pentassuglia, Minorities in International Law, 2002, Strasbourg. The protection of minorities
was already pursued by the League of Nations, including a petition system by minorities, see for a brief
historical overview, Buergenthal, supra note 4, at 10 et seqq. with further references.
102 See for overviews Tom Zwart, The Admissibility of Human Rights Petitions: the Case Law of the European
Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee, 1994, Dordrecht, at 41-44 and Sarah
Joseph et al., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Cases, Materials, and Commentary,
2004, Oxford, at 64-82.
103 This was a deliberate choice, see Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR
Commentary, 1993, Kehl, Art. 2 FOP, at 1, to avoid actiones populares by NGOs. Here again we find a
confusion between actio popularis and NGO complaints.
104 A Newspaper Publishing Company v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 360/1989, UN GAOR 44th
Sess., Supp. No. 40, U. N. Doc. (A/44/40) at 307 (1989) and A publication and a Printing Company v.
Trinidad and Tobago., Communication No. 361/1989 (14 July 1989), UN GAOR 44th Sess., Supp. No. 40,
U. N. Doc. (A/44/40) at 309 (1989). It is also inadmissible to file as a shareholder a communication on behalf
of a company, see S. M. v. Barbados, Communication No. 502/1992, UN GAOR 49th Sess., Supp. No. 40,
Vol. II, U. N. Doc. (A/49/40) at 318 (1994), at para 6.2. et seq. This might only be different if a right of a
companies owner is directly infringed in an individual right. See Allan Singer v. Canada, Communication
No. 455/1991, UN GAOR 49th Sess., Supp. No. 40, Vol. II, U. N. Doc. (A/49/40) at 155 (1994) at para. 11.2.
105 J. R. T. and the W. G. Party v. Canada, U.N. GAOR 38th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U. N. Doc (A/38/40) at 231
(1983), at para. 8 (a).
106 Erkki Hartikainen v. Finland, Communication No. 40/1978 (20 June 1983), U.N. GOAR, 38th Sess., U.N.
Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/38/40) at 255 (1983) where a school teacher brought a communication on his own
behalf and in his capacity as General Secretary of an NGO. The latter was deemed inadmissible, see at para. 3.
26