Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:24:54.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil and Political Rights: The International Measures of Implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Egon Schwelb
Egon Schwelb*
Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his great blueprint, “An International Bill of the Rights of Man,” written in 1943, i.e. before the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations of 1944 and the San Francisco Conference of 1945, Professor Hersch Lauterpaeht (as he then was) suggested that the international machinery for securing the observance of the “International Bill of the Rights of Man,” which he then proposed, must be of two kinds—of supervision in its widest sense, and of enforcement. By “supervision in its widest sense” he meant “all activity calculated to ensure the observance of the Bill of Rights short of actual enforcement by political or physical means of compulsion.” He went on to say that this included

. . . the collection and publication of information, the receipt of petitions from private sources and representations from States, the communication with governments concerning such petitions and representations, the submission to the highest international political authority of periodical reports on the operation and observance of the Bill of Rights, and, finally, the transmission to that authority of cases of infraction of the Bill sufficiently serious to call for further investigation, for negotiation by the political authority, and, if necessary, for collective enforcement.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 827 - 868
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hersch Lauterpacht, An International Bill of the Rights of Man 196 (New York, 1945).

2 Op. cit. 174. Later, in 1950, Lauterpacht expressed the view that in the long run an International Court of Human Bights must be regarded as an essential part of the International Bill of Rights and that the objections which had led him in 1946 to the conclusion that such a court was not practicable could no longer be regarded as decisive. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Bights 382 et seq. (London, 1950).

3 Preamble to the United Nations Charter. In the terminology of the Charter “social advancement” includes advancement in the field of human rights.

4 Res. 9(11) sec. 7, Economic and Social Council, 2nd Sess., Official Records, pp. The expression “measures of implementation” has acquired a technical meaning in the sense that it now denotes, in addition to measures taken under municipal law, measures for the international supervision of the observance of the commitments. The “ordinary meaning” of “implementation” would indicate that the application nby the organs of state, not control measures on the international level are meant. See Francesco Capotorti, “The International Measures of Implementation included in the Covenants on Human Rights,” in Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium on the International Protection of Human Eights, Oslo, 1967 (Stockholm, Almquist & Wiksell, publishers); also Schwelb in “Notes on the Early Legislative History of the Measures of Implementation of the International Covenants on Human Rights,” in Melanges Modinos (Paris, 1968).

5 General Assembly Res. 2200 A (XXI) of Dec. 10, 1966, General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 16 (A/6315), p. 49; reprinted in “Human Eights, a Compilation of International Instruments of the United Nations,” U.N. Doc. A/ CONF.32/4, U.N. Pub. Sales No.: E. 68. XIV, 6, and 61 A.J.I.L. 870 (1967).

6 European Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, Nov. 4, 1950 (European Convention on Human Eights), U.N. Treaty Series (1955), No. 2889, p. 221; 1950 U.N. Yearbook on Human Eights 418 et acq.;45 A.J.LL. Supp. 24 (1951). The European Social Charter is reprinted in 1961 U.N. Yearbook on Human Eights 442

7 Convention on Dec. 14, I960; reprinted in 1961 U.N. Yearbook on Human Eights437, and against Discrimination in Education adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in U.N. Doc. A/CONF.32/4, note 5 above.

8 Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on Dec. 10, 1962 (to be referred to as “UNESCO Protocol” hereafter), reprinted in 1962 United Nations Juridical Yearbook; 1962 Provisional Edition ST/LEG/8, Fasc. 2, p. 187, in 1962 U.N. Yearbook on Human Eights 398, and in U.N. Doc. A/CONF.32/4, note 5 above.

9 General Assembly Res. 2106A (XX) of Dec. 21, 1965, General Assembly, 20th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 14 (A/6014), p. 47; reprinted U.N.DocA/CONF.32/4,note 5 above. This Convention will be referred to as the Racial Discrimination Convention hereafter.

10 Arts. 22 to 34 and 37 of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization corresponding to Arts. 408 to 420 and 423 of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. In his contribution “HumanRights,SocialJusticeandPeace,“Proceedings oftheNobelSymposium (note 4 above), Jenks lists as belonging to a limited groupofconventionswhich have come to be regarded as being in a special sense thehuman rights conventionsof the I.L.O., in addition to the four conventions mentioned in the text, the Forced Labor Convention of 1930 and the Eight to Organise and Collective BargaingConventionof 1949.

11 These have recently been described in the “Analytical and Technical Study“ prepared by the Secretary General at the request of the Commission on Human Rightsfor the Working Group to study the proposal to create the institution oUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.21/L.1,Dec.30, 1966, pars. 158 to 192, and in the Study of Methods used by the United Nationsin the Field of Human Eights, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.32/6 of June 20, 1967, Chs. I l land V. They include the machinery established by agreement between the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, but without the intercession of a treaty between states, for the protection of freedom of association; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the Special Committee (of twenty-four)on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a comprehensive system of subsidiary organs; and the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Repeatedly attempts have been made to make the United Nations Commission of Human Bights itself an organ of implementation. In the most recent past important steps in this direction have been taken (Res. 1102(XL) of March 4, 1966, of the Economic and Social Council; Res. 2 (XXII) adopted by the Commission on Human Eights at its 1966 session (Economic and Social Council,41st Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 8, U.N. Doc. E/4184); General Assembly Res. 2144 (XXI) of Oct. 26, 1966, par. 12; Res. 2, 5, 6,7, 8 and 9 (XXIII) of the1967 session of the Commission on Human Rights(Economic and Social Council, 42ndSess., Official Records, Supp. No. 6, U.N. Doc. E/4322); resolutions of the Economic and Social Council 1234, 1235 and 1236 (XLII) of June 6, 1967; see also the Report of the 20th Sess. of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/286, pars. 75-95, Res. 3 (XX) (1967)and the Report of the 24th Sess. (1968) of the Commission on Human Rights (Economic and Social Council, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 4, U.N. Doc. E/4475), pars. 140-210. For several years the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights have been considering the “question concerning the of human rights through a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Eights or some other appropriate international machinery.” In 1967 the Commission on Human Eights (U.N. Doe. E/4322, Res. 14 (XXII)) and the Economic and Social Council (Res. 1237 (XLII) of June 6, 1967) decided by majority vote to recommend to the General Assembly the establishment by resolution of the Office of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Eights as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. At its 1967 session the General Assembly decided by majority vote to give high priority to the consideration of this question at its Twenty-Third (1968) Session (Res. 2333 (XXII) of Dec. 18, 1967). The reporting arrangements instituted under various provisions of the Charter (Arts. 64, 73(e), 87(a) and 88), particularly the system of triennial reports describing developments and the progress achieved in the field of human rights and measures taken to safeguard human liberty also belong to the “measures of implementation” based on the powers of the Organization emanating from its basic instrument (Resolution of the Economic and Social624B (XXII) of Aug. 1, 1956). The system was modified byEes.888 B (XXXIV) of July 24, 1962; 1074 C (XXXIX) of July 28, 1965, and1230(XLII) of June 6, 1967. See also the Study of Methods, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/6,above, pars. 407—419, and below at note 68.

12 Commission on Human Rights, Report of the 10th Session (February-April, 1954), Economic and Social Council, 18th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 7 (E/2573).the request of the General Assembly (Res. 833 (IX) of Dec. 4, 1954) the Secretariat the “Annotations on the text of the draft International Covenants on Human Rights,” Chs. VII and IX of which deal with the draft measures of implementation(General Assembly, 10th Sess., Official Records, 1955. Agenda item 28 (Part II),Annexes, U.N. Doc. A/2929). At a later stage, again at the request of the General Assembly (Res. 1843 B (XVII) of Dec. 19, 1962), the Secretary General prepared an additional “Explanatory paper on measures of implementation” (General Assembly,18th Sess., Official Records, Annexes, Agenda item 48, A/5411, April 29, 1963).For an outline of the legislative history of the measures of implementation of both Covenants, see Schwelb in Melanges Modinos, note 4 above.

13 Resolution of the Economic and Social Council 545 B I (XVIII) of July 29,1954,

14 See the Report of the Third Committee, A/5655, pars. 109 to 124 in General Assembly, 18th Sess., 1963, Official Records, Agenda item 48, Annexes, and the summary records of the 1267th to 1269th and 1273rd to 1276th meetings of the Third Committee, General Assembly, 18th Sess., Official Records, Third Committee, pp. 287 et

15 seq. and 328 et seq. See also General Assembly Res. 1960 (XVIII), Dec. 12, 1963. Where in the footnotes to this article reference is made to numbered meetings, the meetings of the Third Committee of the General Assembly are meant. These are found in the Official Records of the relevant session of the General Assembly, Third Committee. The documents are in the A/C.3/SR. series. 15 See the Report of the Third Committee (A/6173), in General Assembly, 20th Sess., Agenda item 65, Annexes, 1965, and the summary records of the 1370th and 1374th meetings of the Third Committee, General Assembly, 20th Sess., Official Records, Third Committee, pp. 475 et seq. and 503 et seq. See also General Assembly Res. 2080 (XX), Dec. 20, 1965. ie

16 See the Report of the Third Committee, U.N. Doc. A/6546, Dec. 13, 1966, and U.N. Doc. A/P.V. 1496. At the time this article went to press (August, 1968) the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been signed by 30 states, and the Optional Protocol by 14, “

17 Note 12 above, draft Arts. 40 and 43,

18 Ibid., draft Art. 27.

19 Ibid., draft Art. 44.

20 Ibid., draft Arts. 48 and 49.

21 For a description of these attempts see Schwelb, “Notes on the Early Legislative History of the Measures of Implementation of the Covenants on Human Rights,” loc. cit. note 4 above.

22 Note 8 above. See also Suzanne Bastid, ‘ ‘ Une Nouvelle Commission de Conciliat i o n , “ in Melanges offerts a Henri Eolin (1964).

23 Note 9 above. On the measures of implementation of the Eacial Discrimination Convention, see Schwelb in 15 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 1031-1053 (1966).

24 See, e.g., the statement of the U.S.S.E. of May 18, 1948, reproduced in the Eeport of the 5th (1949) Session of the Commission on Human Eights, Economic and Social Council, 9th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 10, E/1371, Annex III , and the statements by the U.S.S.B., Poland, Rumania, Ukrainian S.S.E. and Czechoslovakia in the general debate on the measures of implementation at the 18th (1963) Session of the General Assembly in the 1273rd, 1274th and 1275th meetings of the Third Committee.

25 General Assembly, 20th Sess. (1965), Official Records, Agenda item 65, Annexes, Report of the Third Committee A/6173, pars. 5-6; statement of Ghana in the 1374th meeting of the Third Committee.

26 See the statements by the U.S.S.R. in the 1397th, 1399th and 1415th meetings of the Third Committee; Byelorussia, Poland and the Ukraine, 1415th meeting; Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Rumania, 1416th meeting; and Hungary, 1417th meeting. The position of these delegations had been similar in the course of the general debate on implementation at the 18th Session of the General Assembly (1963); statement by the U.S.S.E., 1273rd meeting of the Third Committee; Poland, 1274th meeting; Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Ukrainian S.8.E., 1275th meeting.

27 Mr. Glaser (Rumania), 1416th meeting, par. 16.

28 Statement by the Soviet Delegation to the Commission on Human Eights, May 18, 1948, Annex III of the Report of the Fifth Session of the Commission on Human Rights (1949), note 24 above.

29 Mr. Paolini, 1415th meeting, par. 21.

30 Mr. Mae Donald (Canada), 1386th meeting, par. 12.

31 Mr. Mommersteeg (Netherlands), 1397th meeting, par. 19.

32 Idem, 1400th meeting, par. 14.

33 Mr. Nettel (Austria), 1417th meeting, par. 38.

34 Lady Gaitskell (United Kingdom), 1415th meeting, par. 25.

35 India, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, the United Arab Bepublic and Upper Volta, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.1379 and Rev. 1; also U.N. Doc. A/C.3/1373 co-sponsored by the same delegations together with those of Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Tunisia. These documents will be referred to hereinafter as the Afro-Asian amendments. so

36 Mr. Hoveyda (Iran), 1416th meeting, par. 29.

37 Mr. Sanon (Upper Volta), 1418th meeting, par. 12.

38 Mr. Sinha (India), 1416th meeting, par. 1,

39 Observations on the measures of implementation provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights and in the Optional Protocol of 1966 will be found in the following recent publications: J. W. Briigel, “Die Menschenrechtskonventionen der Vereinten Nationen,” 1967 Europa Archiv 329; Francesco Capotorti, “The International Measures of Implementation included in the Covenants on Human Eights,” note 4 above; Sir Samuel Hoare, “ T h e U.N. Commission on Human Eights“ in The International Protection of Human Eights (Evan Luard, ed.) (Frederick A. Praeger, 1967); C. Wilfred Jenks, “ T h e United Nations Covenants on Human Eights Come to Life,” Eecueil d'Etudes de Droit International en hommage a Paul Guggenheim, 1968; Frank C. Newman, “Ombudsmen and Human Eights: The New IT.N. Treaty Proposals,” 34 Chicago Law Eev. 951 (1967); idem, “Natural Justice, Due Process and the New International Covenants on Human Eights,” Public Law, Winter 1967, p. 274; Donald P. Parson, “ T h e Individual Eight of Petition,” 13 Wayne Law Eev. 697 (1966-1967); Egon Schwelb, “Notes on the Early Legislative History,” etc., note 4 above; Louis B. Sohn, “ A Short History of United Nations Documents on Human Eights,” Supplementary Paper to “ T h e United Nations and Human Eights,“ 18th Eeport of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (Oceana Publications Inc., 1968); Eobert Starr, “International Protection of Human Eights and the United Nations Covenants,” 1967 Wisconsin Law Eeview 862. See also David J. Halperin, “Human Eights and Natural Eesources,” in 9 William and Mary Law Eev. 770 (1968), which deals with Art. 25 of the Covenant on Economic and Social Eights and Art. 47 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Eights. These were inserted in the course of the consideration of the implementation articles, but were intended by their sponsors to modify the substantive provisions of Art. 1, par. 2? of both Covenants.

40 See note 35 above. The deletion of the words “ a judicial or” was adopted by 86 votes to none, with three abstentions (1420th meeting, par. 11; report of the Third Committee (A/6546), pars. 194 and 207).

41 A/6546, pars. 193 and 206.

42 For details of the conditions of eligibility and other legal problems relating to the designation and election of the members of the European Commission see Monconduit, La Commission Europfienne des Droits de 1'Homme 54-61.

43 Cf. the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations created by the Governing Body of the International Labor Office in 1926. Persons who hold positions which make them dependent on a government are for this reason disqualified from membership of the Committee (Jenks, loc. cit. note 10 above). See also the Report of the I.L.0. on “Organizational and Procedural Arrangements for the Implementation of Conventions and Recommendations in the Field of Human Rights,” TJ.N. Doc. E/4144 (1965), pars. 24 et seq.

44 Commission on Human Eights, Report of the 6th Session (1950), Economic and Social Council, 11th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 5 (E/1681), Annex I, draft Art. 34.

45 Commission on Human Eights, Eeport of the 7th Session (1951), Economic and Social Council, 13th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 9 (E/1992), par. 78.

46 Commission on Human Eights, Eeport of the 9th Session (1953), Economic and Social Council, 16th Sess., Official Eecords, No. 8 (E/2447), pars. 181-184, and Annex III, pars. 175-176.

47 By 10 votes to 5, with three abstentions. Eeport of the 10th Session of the Commission, E/2573 (note 12 above), par. 204.

48 Mr. MacDonald (Canada), 1426th meeting of the Third Committee.

49 Note 12 above.

50 Draft Art. 39 his in U.N. Doe. A/C.3/6.1379.

51 Idem in TJ.N. Doc. A/C.3/6.1379/Rev. 1.

52 Miss Hart, 1426th meeting, par.

53 ssMiss O'Leary, 1427th meeting, par. 2.

54 Mr. Gros Espiell, ibid., par. 8.

55 Mrs. Ramaholimihaso, ibid., pars. 29-30.

56 Mr. Sanon, ibid., par. 35.

57 Ibid., par. 45.

58 Mr. Mohammed, ibid., par. 36.

59 Mrs. Harris, ibid., par. 37.

60 Ibid., par. 48.

61 Mr. Bazan, ibid., par. 50.

62 Ibid.

63 Mr. Mirza (Pakistan), 1426th meeting, par. 14.

64 Mr. MacDonald, 1427th meeting, par. 61.

65 There were 44 votes for the word ‘ ‘ general,'’ 29 votes against, with 12 abstentions.

66 Mr. MacDonald, 1426th meeting, par. 22.

67 Mr. Mirza, 1426th meeting.

68 Resolutions of the Economic and Social Council 624B (XXII), 1956; 888B (XXXIV), 1962; 1074C (XXXIX), 1965; and 1230(XLII), 1967. See the Study of Methods used by the United Nations in the Field of Human Eights, TT.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/6, June, 1967, pars. 407-419.

69 Jenks, loo. cit., note 10 above.

70 Report of the Commission appointed under Art. 26 of the I.L.O. Constitution to examine the complaint filed by the Government of Ghana concerning the observance by the Government of Portugal of the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957 (No. 105), I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Supp. 11, April, 1962 (Vol. 45, No. 2 ) ; and Report of the Commission appointed under Art. 26 of the LL.O. to examine the complaint filed by the Government of Portugal concerning the observance by the Government of Liberia of the Forced Labor Convention, 1930 (No. 29), I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Supp. 11, April, 1963 (Vol. 46, No. 2).

71 Greece v. the United Kingdom (1956), and Greece v. the United Kingdom (1957), European Commission of Human Eights, Documents and Decisions, 1955-1956-1957, pp. 128-131; 2 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Eights (1958-1959) 174- 199.

72 Austria v. Italy, 4 ibid. (1961) 116; 5 ibid. (1962) 54; 6 ibid. (1963) 740.

73 The Scandinavian-Netherlands complaints against Greece were declared admissible by decision of the European Commission of Jan. 24, 1968 (Council of Europe Press Communique C(68)3 of Jan. 25, 1968). See also Buergenthal, 62 A.J.I.L. 441 (1968) (“Because the Greek coup d'etat did not affect the vital interests of any of the contracting states, it tested, unlike any other case before it, the willingness of the contracting states to uphold the integrity of the Convention, unmotivated by any extraneous political or economic stake in the outcome of the litigation.” ﹛ibid. 450).

74 Lady Gaitskell, 1415th meeting, par. 29.

75 Mr. MacDonald, 1357th meeting.

76 See, e.g., the statements of the representatives of Canada (1415th meeting); Uruguay (ibid, and in 1421st meeting); France (1415th meeting); the representative of Trance, Mr. Paolini, recommended that the competence of the Committee should be mandatory and at the same time less extensive than was proposed by the Commission on Human Eights; United Kingdom (ibid.); Norway (ibid.); Costa Eica (1416th meeting); Australia (ibid.); Madagascar (ibid.); Lebanon (ibid.); Belgium (ibid.); Sweden (ibid.); Italy (1417th meeting); Chile (ibid, and in 1418th meeting); Finland (1417th meeting); Austria (ibid.); United States (ibid.); Philippines (1418th meeting); Venezuela (ibid.); Denmark (ibid.).

77 “U.N. Doe. A/C.3/L.1379, par. 2; Eeport of the Third Committee (A/6546), par. 402.

78 U.N. Docs. A/C.3/L.1379/Kev. 1; A/6546, par. 403. '

79 South West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections, [1962] I.C.J. Eep. at 452.

80 Idem, Second Phase, [1966] I.C.J. Eep. 6.

81 Austria v. Italy, 4 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Eights at 140.

82 Mr. Bazan, 1428th meeting, par. 43.

83 Mr. Saksena, 1428th meeting, par. 13.

84 Miss Hart, 1429th meeting, par. 9.

85 Mrs. Dmitruk, 1428th meeting, par. 40. The last sentence of Art. 40(2) was adopted by 57 votes to 9, with 13 abstentions (ibid., par. 62; also A/6546, par. 432).

86 In the Nottebohm Case, Preliminary Objection (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), [1953] I.C.J. Bep. I l l , the Court held that, once the condition enabling the clause of compulsory jurisdiction to produce its effects “has been satisfied, the Court must deal with the claim… . An extrinsic fact such as the subsequent lapse of the Declaration, by reason of the expiry of the period or by denunciation, cannot deprive the Court of the jurisdiction already established.” [Italics added.]

87 1428th meeting, par. 62. The vote was 61 for, 5 against, with 13 abstentions.

88 1429th meeting, par. 3.

89 Ibid., par. 5.

90 General Assembly Ees. 2200 (XXI) of Dec. 16, 1966. The UNESCO Protocol (Art. 26), the Eacial Discrimination Convention (Art. 21) and the European Convention of Human Eights (Art. 65) contain denunciation clauses.

91 I..L.C. Reports on the second part of its 17th Sess. and on its 18th Bess. (1966), General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 9 (A/6309/Eev. 1), draft Art. 53; reprinted in 61 A.J.I.L. 415 (1967). As revised at the first session of the U.N. Conference on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 1968, draft Art. 53 provides, in part, that a treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied from the nature of the treaty. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.l/L.370/Add.6; 7 Int. Legal Materials 794^795 (1968).

92 Report of the 6th Session (1950) of the Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 5 (E/1681), Annex I, draft Art. 38.

93 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, P.C.I. J . Series A, No. 2, p. 11. The question of the existence of a “ d i s p u t e “ was one of the cardinal points also in the South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of Dec. 21, 1962, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 319, at 328 and 342 (Third Preliminary Objection by Respondent).

94 Mr. Ozgur (Cyprus), 1428th meeting, par. 28. It might be noted that under Art. 41(1) (b) either state has the right to refer the matter to the Committee. The representatives of Madagascar (Mrs. Ramaholimihaso), Hid., par. 27, and of Iraq (Mrs. Afnan), ibid., par. 35, pointed out that the paragraph should provide for the information of the Human Rights Committee that the action prescribed in subparagraph (a) had been taken.

95 lbid., par. 50; also A/6546, par. 422.

96 For a recent essay on the domestic remedies rule, see Mummery in 58 A.J.I.L. 389 (1964). See also 1964 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, particularly Lillich, p. 101, Mummery, p. 107, and this writer's comments on the domestic remedies rule under the European Convention, p. 117. The application of the rule by the European Commission on Human Rights is treated in detail by Vasak.

97 On the Racial Discrimination Convention and the domestic remedies rule, see Schwelb, loo. cit. note 23 above, at 1038.

98 U.N. Doe. A/C.3/L.1355, par. 2, in A/6564, par. 440.

99 1428th meeting, par. 9.

100 See Monconduit, op. cit. note 96 above, at 158-159.

101 The rapporteur of the 1953 session of the Commission on Human Eights, Mr. Kaeckenbeeck (Belgium), suggested that the words “une solution amicale” be replaced by “une solution amiable.” Eeport of the 9th Session of the Commission on Human Eights (1953), Economic and Social Council, 16th Sess., Official Eecords, Supp. No. 8 (E/2447), Annex III, par. 148.

102 Art. 31 of the European Convention. Italics added.

103 The British amendment was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 3 abstentions. Eeport of the 9th (1953) Session of the Commission on Human Eights (note 46 above) (B/2447), Annex I I I , par. 147.

104 Mrs. Dick, 1273rd meeting of the Third Committee, Nov. 27, 1963, par. 20.

105 See, e.g., the well-known cases of Pataki v. Austria and Dunshirn v. Austria. In order to avoid an adverse finding of the Commission, Austria amended its Code of Criminal Procedure. 6 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Eights 714 et seq. (1963).

106 The present clause (ii) of Art. 41(1) (h) was adopted by 58 votes to Hone, with 24 abstentions. 1428th meeting, par. 54; also A/6546, par. 429.

107 Miss O'Leary (Ireland), 1429th meeting, par. 8.

108 Mr. Gestrin (Finland), speaking also on behalf of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1429th meeting, par. 14; Mr. Gros Espiell (Uruguay), ibid., par. 3; Miss Meneses (“Venezuela), ibid., par. 6.

109 Mr. Saksena (India), 1428th meeting, par. 11.

110 Mr. Gooneratne (Ceylon), ibid., pars. 19 and 37.

111 Report of the 6th Session (1950) of the Commission on Human Eights, Economic and Social Council, 11th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 5 (E/1681), par. 36.

112 European Treaty Series, No. 45; 38 A.J.I.L. 333 (1964).

113 U.N Docs. A/C.3/L. 1379/Bev. 1, par. 3, and A/C.3/L. 1391, par. 3, in A/6546, pars. 441, 443 and 460; 1431st meeting of the Third Committee. The IT. S. amendment (the present subparagraph (a) of Art. 42(1)) was adopted on a roll-call vote by 42 votes to 32, with 19 abstentions.

114 Documents listed in the preceding footnote. The present subparagraph (b) was adopted on a roll-call vote by 41 votes to 36, with 16 abstentions,

115 Note 113 above.

116 Mr. Paolini, 1430th meeting, par. 51, and 1431st meeting, par. 33.

117 Ibid.,

118 par. 34.

119 Ibid., par. 36. The vote was 50 for, 22 against, with 18 abstentions.

120 1446th meeting, par. 36.

121 Harrap's Standard French and English Dictionary, J. E. Mansion, editor, Part One.

122 Bailly-De Toro, Dictionnaire des Synonymes de la Langue Franchise, under verifier.

123 1430th meeting, par. 51.

124 Mrs. Afnan, 1431st meeting, par. 3 .

125 1430th meeting, par. 51.

126 Lady Gaitskell, 1432nd meeting, par. 2.

127 Mr. Kornyenko, ibid., par. 5. The representative's statement that the sponsors had accepted the French sub-amendments is not borne out by the record. If they had been accepted, they would have become part of the sponsors’ text and would not have been put to the vote as French sub-amendments. The representative of the United Arab Republic, Mr. Aboul Naar had said in the 1431st meeting (par. 35) that his delegation, and he believed also other sponsors of Doc. A/C.3/L. 1379/Eev. 1/ Corr. 2, could accept the French sub-amendments. Moreover, the French sub-amendments had been moved not only to the Afro-Asian text, but also to the United States sub-amendment to it (see notes 113 and 114 above) and it was the U. S. amendment, not the text of the Afro-Asian sponsors, that was adopted (1431st meeting, par. 36).

128 Draft Art. 27(4) of the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, in I.L.C. Eeports on its 1966 sessions, General Assembly, 21st Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/ 6309/Eev. 1). Emphasis added. The first session of the U. N. Conference on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 1968, did not introduce any change in the text of draft Art. 27 (4) proposed by the IX.C. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.370 (Draft Eeport of the Committee of the Whole on its work at the first session of the Conference); 7 Int. Legal Materials 784-785 (1968).

129 For a report on the attempts to include provisions on the right of petition in the Covenant, see Schwelb, in Melanges Modinos, op. cit. note 4 above.

130 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.1355, Oct. 17, 1966; Report of the Third Committee (A/6546), par. 474. For the introductory statement by the representative of The Netherlands (Mr. Mommersteeg), see 1414th meeting, pars. 24-25.

131 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.1402 (Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria and Pakistan).

132 U.N. Doc. A./C.3/L.1402/Bev. 2 (Draft Art. 41 Us). This text was considered at the 1438th to 1441st meetings of the Third Committee.

133 1440th meeting, pars. 32, 42 and 52; A/6546, par. 485.

134 UN. Doc. A/C.3/L.1411, Nov. 30, 1966.

135 U.N. Docs. A/C.3/L.1411/Eev. 1 and Eev. 2, Dec. 1, 1966.

136 1451st meeting, par. 597.

137 U.N. Doc. A/P.V. 1496.

138 Mr. Saksena (India), 1451st meeting, par. 62.

139 1446th meeting, par. 28, and 1451st meeting, par. 54.

140 Niger and Togo, 1451st meeting, par. 16; A/P.V.1496.

141 Status as of August 27, 1968 .

142 Status as of August 27, 1968.

143 Speaking also on behalf of the delegations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, 1439th meeting, par. 2.

144 1259th meeting; General Assembly, 18th Sess. (1963), Official Records, Agenda item 48, Annexes, Eeport of the Third Committee (A/5655), pars. 18 and 29. The words “within its territory” were retained in Art. 2(1) by 55 votes to 10, with 18 abstentions.

145 Golsong, Das Bechtsschutzsystem der europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention 54- 56, proves conclusively, against some publicists (Eolin, Dupuy) and in view of an ambiguous decision of the European Commission, that the European Convention does not permit an actio popularis by individuals.

146 Note 130 above.

147 Note 131 above.

148 Note 132 above.

149 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.1394, later withdrawn; statement by Mr. Paolini (France), 1418th meeting, par. 8.

150 Mr. Gros Espiell (Uruguay), 1438th meeting, par. 44.

152 European Treaty Series, No. 46; 58 A.J.I.L. 334 (1964).

153 Made by Mr. Kornyenko (Ukrainian 8.S.B.), 1441st meeting, par. 51. A similarsuggestion had apparently also been made in negotiations outside the Committee meetings: see 1438th meeting, par. 3.

153 See Golsong, op. oit. note 145 above, at 49 et teq., and idem, “Implementation of International Protection of Human Eights,” 110 Hague Academy, Becueil des Cours 116 (HI, 1963); Vasak, La Convention EuropSenne des Droits de l'Homme 132- Ganshof van der Meersch, I Organisations Europeennes 306-307.

154 On “priorities among implementation procedures,” see Bonn, Supplementary Paper in “The United Nations and Human Rights,”

155 The draft of the present Art. 44 as proposed by Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Denmark, Ghana and New Zealand in TJ.N. Docs. A/C.3/L. 1396 and A/C.3/L.1399 (the latter cosponsored also by France) contained, in addition to one paragraph which corresponds to Art. 44, a second paragraph which would have provided that the Human Eights Committee shall take no action under the relevant articles of the Covenant in respect of which any of the procedures referred to in par. 1 (i.e. in the present Art. 44) have been invoked. The second paragraph was omitted in a revised version of the proposal (TJ.N. Doc. A/C.3/L.1399/Eev. 1). The revised draft was adopted by 49 votes to 20, with 16 abstentions (1432nd to 1434th meetings; Eeport of the Third Committee (A/6546), pars. 504-515).

156 U.N. Docs. A/C.3/L. 1402, 1402/Bev. 1 and Eev. 2; A/C.3/L. 1411, 1411/Bev. 1 and Eev. 2; Eeport of the Third Committee (A/6546), pars. 477 and 568; statements by Mr. Sanon (Upper Volta), 1438th meeting, par. 56; the Legal Counsel, ibid., par. 59; Mr. Paolini (France), 1441st meeting, par. 27; Mr. Hanablia (Tunisia), ibid., par. 39.

157 See above, text after note 115

158 See above, at notes 121 and 122