CCPR/C/37/D/268/1987

thirty-seventh seagion)

Submitted by: M. G. B and 8. P. [names deleted]

Alleged victima: The authors

State party concerned: Trinidad and Tobago

Date of communication: 4 December 1987

Tho Fuman Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Maeting on 3 November 1989,

Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1. The authors of the communication (initial letter dated 4 December 1987 and

subsequent letters dated 30 December 1988 and 24 January 1989) are M. G. B. and

S. P., two Trinidadian citisens born on 27 November 1927 and 1 January 1960,

respectively, residing in Trinidad. They claim to be the victims of a violation by

the Government of Trinided and Tobago of articles 2 (3) (a) and (b) and 5 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They sre represented by

counsel.

2.1 The authors state that they applied with the Registrar General of Trinidad to

register a company known as the TNT Human Rights and Legal Aid Company Limited.

This company was to promote the rule of law, human rights facilities and to assist

in providing legal assistance and legal aid to the needy. The Registrar of

Companies refused to recognise this company on the grounds that the establishment

of a company with such objectives by aon-professionals was against public policy.

The authors filed an application for judicial review in the High Court of Trinidad

and Tobago but the Judge dismissed the application without issuing a written

judgment. They then appealed to the Court of Appeal and asked that the appeal be

deemed urgent. The Court of Appeal, on 5 November 1987, refused to consider the

appeal urgent on the grounds that the authors' application did not show sufficient

ground for urgency, because "the incorporation of the Appellants unde: the nane

sought is not a gine gua non to the lawful provision of financial assistance to

indigent persons directly or otherwise with a view to their obtaining legal aid

and/or legal advice."

2.2 The authors indicate that there is no right of appeal against thet decision to

the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They claim that the statistics for

hearings and the determination of matters in the Court of Appeal show that there is

an “inordinate” delay in the hearings and the determination of appeals, usually

three to four years. This, they argue, constitutes a judicial block for the

determination of appeals and a denial of the right of access to the court.

~157-

3. By decision of 15 March 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee

tranemitted the communication to the State party under rule 91 of the Committee's

rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the

question of the admissibility of the communication. The Working Group further

requested the authors to clarify (a) whether the company they sought to register

would have operated on a non-profit basis; (b) whether the persons who would have

constituted this company have been in any way prevented from providing legal aid ti:

the needy; and (c) whether there were other associations of lawyers in Trinidad and

Tobago which provided similar services.

4.1 By letter dated 30 December 1988, counsel notes that the appeal was

discontinued by the authors on 15 December 1988, because they considered it

impossible to obtain a positive result in the case since the High Court of Trinidad

and Tobago had in October 1988, indicated to them that no written judgment was

available. Without such a judgment however, the case could not be entertained by

the Court of Appeal of Trinidad.

4.2 By further letter dated 24 January 1989 counsel clarifies that the company as

a whole would have operated on a profit basis to achieve its aims but that it would

have provided free legal sedvice and free legal representation in appropriate

cases. He further states that the authors have not been prevented from providing

legal aid to the needy and that there are other associations in Trinidad and

Tobago, such as the Anglican Church and the Caribbean Human Rights Committee, whose

aims and objectives are similar to those of the company the author sought to have

registered. Counsel provides a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association

of the company.

5. The State party's deadline for its submission concerning information and

observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication

expired on 27 June 1988. No comments were received from the State party.

6.1 Before considering any claims in a communication, the Working Group must, in

accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it igs

admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

6.2 The Committee has considered the authors’ allegations of a violation of

articles 2 (3) (a) and (b) and 5 of the Covenant and notes that these are general

undertakings by States and cannot be invoked, in isolation, by individuals under

the Optional Protocol. The Committee has ex officio examined whether the facts

submitted raise potential issues under other articles of the Covenant. It has

concluded that they do not. The Committee therefore finds that the communication

is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant within the meaning of article 3

of the Optional Protocol.

7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible;

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and to the State

party.

-158-