Inadmissibility decision; Procedural issues: same matter - another procedure of international investigation or settlement; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
A. M. v. Denmark, Communication No. 121/1982, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at
32 (1984).
Submitted by: A. M. on 9 March 1982
Alleged victim: The author
State party: Denmark
Date of decision on inadmissibility: 23 July 1982 (sixteenth session)
State party's reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of Optional Protocol--Case already considered
under other procedure of international investigation--European Commission of Human Rights
Decision on admissibility'
1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 9 March 1982 and further letters
dated 20 April and 9, 29 and 30 June 1982) is a 39-year-old Pakistani national at present
serving a prison term in Denmark. He submits the communication on his own behalf.
2.1 The author states that he has been residing in Denmark since 1970, that in 1977 he
married in Pakistan a citizen of that country, that his wife has since then lived with him in
Denmark and that they have two children. He describes the facts of the case as follows:
2.2 On 31 July 1989, he was involved in a violent fight in Odense, Denmark, with several
other men from Pakistan, Morocco and Algeria. At least four people were severely injured
and one of them died. The author subsequently stood trial on charges including "bodily
injuries with death as a result" and on 30 January 1981 he was convicted by the Eastern Court
of Appeal (Oestre Landsrot), sitting with a jury, and sentenced to three and a half years'
imprisonment. The author applied to the Special Court for Revision (Den saerlige klageret)
for a new trial. The Court rejected the request on 4 December 1981.
2.3 On 21 April 1981, A. M. was informed by the Danish immigration authorities that he
would have to leave Denmark after serving his sentence. This decision was upheld by the
Ministry of Justice and A. M. was so informed on 23 October 1981. He states that he is due to
be released from prison on 15 August 1982 and that he will be deported on that date.
3.1 The author claims before the Human Rights Committee that he has been unjustly treated
because he is a foreigner. He alleges that the police were dishonest in the conduct of pro-trial
investigations into the matter and that the Court denied him a fair trial by giving undue
weight to evidence against him, including testimony allegedly obtained from his Pakistani
enemies in Denmark. He believes that a fair assessment of the evidence would have led to his
acquittal. The author further claims that the decision of the Danish authorities to deport him
upon release from prison constitutes degrading treatment and punishment.
3.2 In particular he claims to be a victim of breaches by Denmark of articles 5, 7 and 10 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as regards the right not to be subjected to
degrading treatment or punishment, the right to equality before the law and the right to a fair
trial. He also invokes article 11 (a) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning
the presumption of innocence. These articles correspond, in substance, to articles 7, 14 and 26
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
4. It appears from the communication that the author has submitted the same matter to the
European Commission of Human Rights. His application before that body was declared
inadmissible on 1 March 1982 as manifestly ill-rounded.
5. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee observes in
this connection that, when ratifying the Optional Protocol and recognizing the competence of
the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its
jurisdiction, the State party Denmark made a reservation, with reference to article 5 (2) (a) of
the Optional Protocol, in respect of the competence of the Committee to consider a
communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under other
procedures of international investigation.
6. In the light of the above-mentioned reservation and observing that the same matter has
already been considered by the European Commission of Human Rights and therefore by
another procedure of international investigation within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee
concludes that it is not competent to consider the present communication.
7. The Human Rights Committee, accordingly, decides:
That the communication is inadmissible.
8. This decision shall be communicated to the author of the communication and, for
information, to the State party concerned.
1. The text of an individual opinion submitted by a Committee member is appended to the
present decision.