INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL ND POLITICAL RIGHTS

adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966 registered ex-officio on March 23, 1976 comprises 167 State parties and 74 signatories (as of May 2013) monitored by the Human Rights Committee

Human Rights Committee Reviews regular reports of States parties on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding to the Covenant and then whenever the Committee requests (usually every four years) meets in Geneva or New York and normally holds three sessions per year Purpose: In order to make human rights an instrument effectively shaping the lives of individuals and nations, more than just a political proclamation was needed. Hence, from the very outset there was general agreement to the effect that the substance of the Universal Declaration should be translated into the hard legal form of an international treaty. The ICCPR commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, as enumerated below: 1. Protection on individuals physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest). 2. Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial). 3. Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination. 4. Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly. 5. Right to political participation (organize a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority). Brief History: First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States / American Bill of Rights (1789/1791) and the FrenchDclaration des droits de lhomme et du citoyen (1789) - negative rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights Civil and political rights were one of the first areas to be addressed by the international rights treaty regime that was negotiated in the mid- 1940s. These are one of the central cores in the first 19 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights could not garner the international consensus necessary to become a binding treaty because it contained both first-generation civil and political rights and second-generation economic, social, and cultural rights; particularly, a division between developed democratic nations such as the United States, which emphasized civil and political rights, and socialist or communist nations, which emphasized economic, social and cultural rights. In order to solve this problem, two binding Covenants were created instead of one: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Optional Protocols of the ICCPR: First Optional Protocol - establishes an individual complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to complain to the Human Rights Committee about violations of the Covenant - creates of a complex jurisprudence on the interpretation and implementation of the Covenant.
1|P a g e

(as of October 2011) had 114 parties

Second Optional Protocol - abolishes the death penalty; however, countries were permitted to make a reservation allowing for use of death penalty for the most serious crimes of a military nature, committed during wartime - (as of December 2010) had 73 parties CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS - rights which the law will enforce at the instance of individuals without discrimination from the enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and means of happiness Salient Features: Civil Rights Art. 1. Right of Self-Determination - right to freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development - to prevent foreign influence, a provision in the 1986 Phil. Constitution now reads: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination. (Art. II, Sec. 7) Art. 6. Right to Life -includes the right to enjoy life No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, Sec. 1) Issues: o Death Penalty o Mercy-Killing o Abortion Art. 7. Freedom from Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment Torture any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or of instigation of or with consent or acquiescence public official or other person acting in an official capacity. -Phil. Constitution provides: No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Art. III, Sec. 12 (2)) Art. 8. Prohibition of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Slavery status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised Slave a chattel or object which can be disposed of at the will of the master No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. (Art. III, Sec. 18(2)) Exceptions: criminal punishment military service civil obligations
2|P a g e

Equality Before the Law - prohibits any form of discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status - persons or things similarly situated must be alike as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, Sec. 1) Art. 9. Right to Liberty and Security Arrest taking of a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an offense - under the Phil. law, no person may be arrested without judicial warrant of arrest issued by a judge upon probable cause that a crime has been committed by him Exceptions: a. Inflagrante Delicto b. Hot-Pursuit Operation c. Fugitive Miranda Doctrine (Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) - states the rights of a person under custodial investigation Art. 10. Right to be Treated with Dignity and Humanity - applies to prisoners and those deprived of liberty for immigration purposes or psychiatric care Art. 11. Freedom from imprisonment due to breach of contract Procedural Fairness and Rights of the Accused Art. 14. Right to Justice and Fair Trial - all must be equal before the court In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable (Art. III, Sec. 14). Right of Confrontation (Rule 113, Rules of Court) Right Against Self-Incrimination (Art. 14, Sec. 3(g) and Art. III, Sec. 12 Phil. Constitution) Presumption of Innocence (Art. III, Sec. 14(2) Phil. Constitution) Right to Bail (Rule 114, Rules of Court and Art. II, Sec. 13 Phil. Constitution) Right to Appeal Ones conviction of a crime (Rule 122, Rules of Court) Double Jeopardy Protection (Art. III, Sec. 21 Phil. Constitution) Requisites: a. valid complaint or information b. before a competent court c. defendant had pleaded the charge d. defendant was acquitted, convicted or his case was dismissed Right to Compensation Due to Miscarriage of Justice (Art. XIII, Sec. 18 Phil. Constitution, RA 7309)

Art. 15. Prohibition against Prosecution under Ex post facto Law and Retrospective Criminal Penalties Ex Post Facto Law statute which renders a previously innocent act a criminal offense, aggravates or increases the punishment for a crime, or alters the rules of evidence, or deprives an accused of some protection or defense available
3|P a g e

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 22 Phil. Constitution) Individual Liberties Art. 12. Freedom of Movement - right of the persons (as well as legal aliens) to choose their residence or to leave a country Restrictions: interest of national security, public order or health and freedom of others The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law. (Art. III, Sec. 6 Phil. Constitution) Asylum granting of sanctuary by State to persons politically persecuted in his country Art. 17. Right of Privacy - right to be free from intrusion into certain thoughts and activities which include the constitutional freedom or unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom from selfincrimination - Phil. Constitution guarantees only the privacy of communication and correspondence, however, Supreme Court broadened it to matters like privacy of home and person Art. 18. Freedom of Religion, Expression - guaranteed by Art. III, Sec. 5 of the Philippine Constitution - Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his creator. (Art. II, Sec. 6 Phil. Constitution) Art. 23. Right to Marry and Found a Family - the Family Code provides for the requisites of marriage The State recognizes the sanctity of family and shall protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution. (Art. II, Sec. 2) Art. 24. Right to a Nationality right to belong to a State and owe allegiance to it

Right to Own Property and Freedom of Association - not specifically provided in the ICCPR but is iterated in Art. 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. private property or some form of ownership assures a person a highly necessary sphere for his personal and family autonomy may not be taken without due process of law Political Rights - rights to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government (Art. 25, ICCPR) Freedom of Opinion and Expression - subject to regulations or limitations provided by law - Art. III, Sec. 4 and Art. III, Sec 18 Phil. Constitution Right of Access to Information - not expressly provided in the ICCPR but stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Art. III, Sec. 7
4|P a g e

Right to Peaceful Assembly for the Redress of Grievances - right of citizens to meet peacefully for consultation in respect to public issues and to petition the government for redress of grievance - Art. II, Sec 4 and Art. III, Sec. 4 Phil. Constitution Freedom Association -right to form or be a member of an association - Art. III, Sec. 8; Art. XIII, Sec. 15 Phil Constitution) Right to Participate in Government Affairs and Equal Access to Public Services a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors c) to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country Right of Suffrage - right to vote and be voted upon in periodic elections in order that the will of the people shall be determined, as the basis of authority of the government - Art. V Phil. Constitution

CASES Domestic Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos (represented by counsels, Soliman M. Santos, and Cecilia Jimenez) vs. The Republic of the Philippines, Communication No. 1466/2006 Legal Facts: Before 2004, criminal convictions by the RTC imposing death penalty, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment were automatically appealed to the Supreme Court even if the accused did not appeal. However, in Supreme Courts authority to promulgate rules as provided in the 1987 Constitution, it ruled in the case of People vs. Mateo, July 7, 2004, the court amended its previous procedures regarding conviction of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment that it would be more appropriate to refer the case to the Court of Appeals. Thus, all death penalty cases pending while the Mateo judgment was passed would be transferred to the Court of Appeals. Facts: Relying on the positive identification of the witnesses, petitioners were convicted of the murder and were sentenced to death for killing the former Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla (Abadilla), who was ambushed in broad daylight while driving his car along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. After their motions for reconsideration and new trial were rejected by the RTC in January 2000, the case was transmitted to the Supreme Court in February 2000 for automatic review (appeal) of the death penalty. After the last appeal brief, on 6 July 2004, the authors filed a Consolidated Motion for Early Decisions but the same were subsequently denied by the Supreme Court for lack of merit. The review of the case has been pending before the Court of Appeals since January 2005. On September 12, 2005, the petitioners filed a Joint Motion for Early Decision and the case was remitted for decision on November 29, 2006. Due to internal organizational matters of the Court of Appeals, the criminal case concerning the authors was transferred to a newly appointed judge in the Court. On March 6, 2006, petitioners, Lenido Lumanog and Agusto Santos, represented by their counsels submitted a petition before the United Nations in which they alleged that the State violated their rights as provided by Articles 6, par. 1; 9 par. 1; 14, par 1, 3(c) and 5; and 26 of the Covenant. They claimed that their rights were violated as they have been in detention since June 1996 and yet their cases were not yet resolved.
5|P a g e

For Article 6 (1), the authors (the petitioners) claim that despite the abolition of death penalty in 2006, the right to life should be interpreted extensively as the right to quality life and their present conditions were incompatible with the said rights. Article 6 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The authors assert that since the notion of a fair trial must be understood to include the right to a prompt trial, the act of the court constituted a violation of Article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the Covenant. According to the authors, the transfer of the case, on 11 January 2007, to a newly appointed judge in the Court of Appeals will create a further delay in the review of the case, because the new judge will have to study the file anew. These developments are accompanied by the further aggravation of the medical conditions of Mr. Lumanog who just had a kidney transplant. Article 14 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (c) To be tried without undue delay; The State party, challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because it did not question the modification of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure as provided by Article 5, par. 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. It further states that the transfer to the Court of Appeals is in pursuance on the amendment prompted in People vs. Mateo, July 7, 2004. As regards with the violation of the right to life and liberty of the authors, the State party said avers that the convicts were afforded due process and that the detention was in pursuance to the lawful judgment which the trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. Issue: Whether or not the rights of authors as provided by Articles 6, par. 1 and Article 14, par 1, 3(c) of the Covenant were violated by the State party. Ruling of the Human Rights Committee: The Committee decides that the communication is admissible in the issues under article 6, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraph 3(c) of the Covenant. However with respect to a possible violation of article 6, paragraph 1, the Committee considers that this claim has been rendered moot after the abolition by the Philippine Congress of the death penalty in July 2006. In relation to the authors claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (c), it may be noted that the right of the accused to be tried without undue delay relates not only to the time between the formal charging of the accused and the time by which a trial should commence, but also the time until the final judgment on appeal. All stages whether at first instance or on appeal, must be completed without undue delay. The Committee recalls that the right of the accused to be tried without undue delay is not only to ensure that such deprivation of liberty does not last longer than necessary in the circumstances of the specific case, but also to serve the interests of justice. It is noted that the authors are in continuous detention since 1996 and their conviction, dated 30 July 1999, had been pending for review before the Supreme Court for 5 years before being transferred to the Court of Appeals on January 18, 2005. To date, more than three years have elapsed since the transfer to the Court of Appeals and still the authors case has not been heard. There is no justification for the delay in the disposal of the appeal, more than eight years having passed without the authors conviction and sentence been reviewed by a higher tribunal. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the authors rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the Covenant, have been violated.

6|P a g e

In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including the prompt review of their appeal before the Court of Appeals and compensation for the undue delay. In this respect, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the

International Hak-Chul Shin vs. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 926/2000 Facts: Between July 1986 to August 1987, the author, a professional artist, painted a canvas-mounted picture sized 130cm by 160cm. The painting, entitled "Rice Planting (Monaeki)" The author states that as soon as the picture was completed, it was distributed in various forms and was widely publicized. On August 17 1989, the author was arrested on a warrant by the Security Command of the National Police Agency. The painting was seized and allegedly damaged by careless handling of the prosecutor's office. On September 29, 1989, he was indicted for alleged breach of article 7 of the National Security Law, in that the picture constituted an "enemy-benefiting expression". On 12 November 1992, a single judge of the Seoul Criminal District Court, at first instance, acquitted the author. On 16 November 1994, three justices of the 5th panel of the Seoul District Criminal Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against acquittal, considering article 7 of the National Security Law applicable only to acts which were "clearly dangerous enough to engender national existence/security or imperil the free democratic basic order". On 13 March 1998, however, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecutor's further appeal, holding that the lower court had erred in its finding that the picture was not an "enemy-benefiting expression", contrary to article 7 of the National Security Law. The case was then remitted for re-trial before three justices of the Seoul District Criminal Court. On 13 August 1999, the author was convicted and sentenced to probation, with the court ordering confiscation of the picture. On April 25, 2000, the author filed a complaint before the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. The author claims that his conviction and the damaged caused to his painting due to mishandling by the prosecution has violated his rights to freedom of expression as indicated in Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant was violated. Article 19 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice . He contends that the painting depicts his dream of peaceful unification and democratisation of his country based on his experience of rural life during childhood. He argues that the prosecution's argument, in depicting the painting as the author's opposition to a corrupt militaristic south and the desirability of a structural change towards peaceful, traditionally-based farming north as an incitement to communisation is beyond any logical understanding. The author notes that, at trial, the prosecution produced an "expert witness", whose opinion was regarded as authoritative by the Supreme Court, in support of the charges. The author argues that the Court failed to demonstrate that his conviction was necessary for purposes of national security, as required under article 19, paragraph 2, to justify an infringement of the right to freedom of expression. On the other hand, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible and lacks merit because the judicial proceedings were consistent with the Covenant. The state likewise argues that the right to freedom of expression is fully guaranteed as long as any expression does not infringe the law, and that the Article 19 of the Covenant itself provides for certain restrictions on its exercise.
7|P a g e

Issue: Whether or not the freedom of expression of the author (Hak Chul Shin) guaranteed by Article 19, paragraph 2 of the protocol was violated by Republic of Korea. Ruling of the Human Rights Committee: The Committee observes that the picture painted by the author plainly falls within the scope of the right of freedom of expression protected by article 19, paragraph 2; it recalls that this provision specifically refers to ideas imparted "in the form of art". Even if the infringement of the author's right to freedom of expression, through confiscation of his painting and his conviction for a criminal offence, was in the application of the law, the Committee observes that the State party must demonstrate the necessity of these measures for one of the purposes enumerated in article 19 (3). As a consequence, any restriction on that right must be justified in terms of article 19 (3) in which the State failed to present. Article 19 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals. The Committee notes that the State party's submissions do not seek to identify which of these purposes are applicable, much less the necessity thereof in the particular case; it may however be noted that the State party's superior courts identified a national security basis as justification for confiscation of the painting and the conviction of the author. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation for his conviction, annulment of his conviction, and legal costs. In addition, as the State did not provide any justifiable grounds in restricting the authors freedom of expression, it should return the painting to him in its original condition, bearing any necessary expenses incurred thereby. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations in the future.

8|P a g e