Inadmissibility decision; Procedural issues: abuse of the right of submission exhaustion of domestic remedies; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
thixty-eighth session)
Submitted by: C. W. [name deleted)
Allaged victim: The author
State party concerned: Finland
Date of communication: 6 June 1989 (date of initial letter)
Sha Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
Covenart on Civil and Political Rights,
Meating on 30 March 1990,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. The author of the communication dated 6 June 1989 in C. W., a Finnish citisen
currently residing in the United States of America. He claime to be the victim of
violations of articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7- 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22
and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Finland.
2.1 ‘The author claims that becaus~ f his efforts to unravel the existence of a
eo-called Tampere group and ite illegal activities in specific cases, he has been
deliberately and systematically harassed and persecr ted.
2.2 Reportedly, the group consists of Finnish politicians, bank directors, polica
officers, public prosecutors, lawyers and businessmen. The goals of the yroup,
which is reportedly engaged in illegal activities, are said to include advancement
of the power basis of its members and economic gains through the misuse of legal
authority (police, courts), death threats, blackmailing, extortion, confiscation of
evidence, unwarranted searches of homes, unwarranted detentions and arreste, denial
of medical attention during detention, etc. The author states that he has been
used as a "scapegoat" by lower court and police officials. He alleges that the
Public Prosecutor of Tampere, Finland, deliberately obstructed investigation
proceedings against persons with whom the Prosecutor reportedly had personal and
business relations, and that the Prosecutor declined to consider evidence presented
by him. He also alleges that judicial and police officers have kept existing
evidence from being used in his defence, aliegedly in order to protect their own
personal interests.
2.3 The author further states that he was unlawfully arrested and detained by the
Tampere Police for 15 days in August 1988, that he was subjected to "mental
pressure" and that he was denied medical assistance and the right to be visited by
relatives, presumably as a form of personal revenge for his petition to the
Attorney General of Finland, dated 20 May 1988. Finally, it is stated that his
apartment was eearched without a search warrant and that the Tampere Police
confiscated evidence in an attempt to prevent its use in court.
-203-
2.4 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author
does not specify what steps, if any, have been taken in order to seek redress for
vhe eveats complained cf. It is clear, however, from the contezt of the letter
that the author thinks that the pursuit of local remedies would be futile, because
he considers the Finnish authorities and domestic courts to be biased against him.
In this connection, he mentions that, all hie letters to the Attorney General of
Finland have remained nnanewered.
3. Beforc considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. In
doing so, it takes into ac. unt the requirements laid down in articles 2, 3 and 5
of the Optional Protocol and the provisions of rule 90 of its rules of procedure.
The conditions for declaring & communication admissible include, inter alin, that
the claims submitted are sufficiently substantiated and do not constitute an abuse
of the right cf submission, and that all available domestic remedies have been
erhaucted. A careful reading of the author's submission reveals that none of these
conditions have keen met. The Committee notes in particular that the author's
allegation that ho was arbitcarily arrested and detained in August 1988 has not
been further substantiated, althcugh he was invited to do so.
4. The Human Righte Conmittee therefore decides:
(a) The communication is inadmissible;
(b) This decision shall be communicated to the author and, for information,
to the State party.
~204-