CCPR/C/47/D/496/1992

Communication No. 496/1992, T. P. v. Hungary (decision

of 30 March 1993, adopted at the forty-seventh session)

Submitted by:

T. P. (name deleted)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Hungary

Date of communication:

19 September 1990 (initial submission)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 30 March 1993,

Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1.

The author of the communication (dated 19 September 1990) is T. P., a

Hungarian citizen, born on 11 August 1924, currently residing in Budapest,

Hungary. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Hungary of articles 6,

7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant. Hungary is a party to the

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

since 7 December 1988.

Facts as submitted

2.1 The author states that he served as a soldier towards the end of the

Second World War. After the war he was deported to the Soviet Union to work

in labour camps. Upon his return to Hungary, he inherited half of his late

mother's real estate and was consequently considered to be a "kulak".

Although he had obtained a doctor juris degree, he was not allowed to

exercise his profession. His real estate was nationalized. Although the

author is entitled to compensation under a recently enacted compensation law,

he claims that the compensation under this law is wholly insufficient.

2.2 The author states that he was wounded during the political uprising in

1956. In 1960 he was allegedly kidnapped by the secret police; in 1961 he

was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. In 1966 he started a hunger strike

to protest against his continued detention and the allegedly inhuman prison

conditions. After six weeks he was transferred to the prison's mental

hospital, and subjected to "electro- and insulin-shocks". The author submits

that he was held there until 1971, all the time being kept in isolation. In

April 1971 he was transferred to a civilian mental hospital; he was

discharged in November 1971. He was again detained in a psychiatric hospital

for short periods of time in 1981 and 1982.

2.3 The author contends that the secret police prevented him from finding

employment. He claims that, if he had been employed for a period longer than

six months, his legal status as a mentally ill person would have been

reversed. He submits that, because of the involvement of the secret police,

he was able to obtain only freelance work as a translator. He alleges that

this discrimination against him still continues, and mentions in this

connection the refusal of the Ministry of International Economic Relations,

on 12 November 1991, to hire him as a lawyer, although he fulfilled all the

requirements.

2.4 The author alleges that he was kidnapped eight times by secret police

officers. Each time he complained to the Chief Public Prosecutor, but only

once, in June 1988, were disciplinary measures taken against the officers

involved.

2.5 The author further states that on 24 September 1986 his passport was

withdrawn and he was henceforth prevented from leaving the country, on the

grounds that he had not behaved as a good Hungarian citizen during a visit to

Western Europe in 1986. The author's appeals against this decision were

dismissed, but in September 1990 the decision was reversed, following the

author's complaint to the Minister of Internal Affairs.

2.6 The author claims that on several occasions (he specifically mentions

events on 15 March 1990 and 1 June 1991) speeches and addresses delivered by

him were not transmitted on television, although speeches delivered by others

on the same occasions were. He further alleges that publication of his

articles and speeches in newspapers has been prevented by the Hungarian

authorities. In connection with an address, delivered by the author to an

international peace conference during November 1988, the author started a

libel suit against the editor of a newspaper that had reported on the event,

however, without success.

Complaint

3.1 The author seeks a rehabilitation of his "human dignity". He contends

that, on several occasions, the authorities have referred to him as "mentally

ill".

3.2 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of the following

articles of the Covenant:

(a) Article 6, because, although he survived "Leninism's attempt to

liquidate the upper social classes", he has been deprived of all his

properties and prevented from exercising his profession;

(b) Article 7, because he was held in solitary confinement for more

than eight years, and was subjected to electro-shocks and other inhuman and

degrading treatment from 1966 to 1971;

(c) Article 9, because he was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty

during many years;

(d) Article 12, because he was not allowed to leave the country

from September 1986 to September 1990;

(e) Article 14, because he was not given the opportunity to prove in a

fair trial that the measures which the authorities had taken against him were

abusive;

(f) Article 17, because the secret services interfered with his private

life on many occasions; in this connection he refers to registered letters

that never arrived;

(g) Articles 18 and 19, because his writings are still not being

published;

(h) Article 25, because active participation in political life is only

allowed to those who are prepared to make compromises with the authorities.

3.3 The author claims that said violations have continuing effects that in

themselves constitute violations of the Covenant, in that the authorities

refuse to rehabilitate him and continue to suppress his freedom of opinion.

3.4 With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that

he has been demanding a fair hearing since 1964. In 1981 the City Court of

Budapest decided that the author's treatment in the Psychiatric Department

was legal and permissible. In 1982 the author complained to the Chief Public

Prosecutor, demanding the abolition of KGB methods. He also complained to

the International Academy of Legal and Social Medicine, during a congress

held in Budapest in September 1985, to no avail.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human

Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,

decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the

Covenant.

4.2 The Committee recalls that the Optional Protocol entered into force for

Hungary on 7 December 1988. It observes that the Optional Protocol cannot be

applied retroactively and concludes that the Committee is precluded ratione

temporis from examining events that occurred prior to 7 December 1988, unless

the alleged violations continue after the entry into force of the Optional

Protocol for the country concerned or have effects that constitute in

themselves a violation of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee finds

that it is precluded from examining the author's allegations regarding

violations of his rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 14 and 17 of the Covenant.

4.3 As to the author's claim that he is a victim of a violation by the State

party of article 12 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that, in

September 1990, the State party reversed its decision to withdraw the

author's passport, thereby remedying the situation. In this respect,

therefore, the author has no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

4.4 With regard to the author's remaining allegations, the Committee

considers that they have not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility

and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

5.

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible;

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for

information, to the State party.

[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original

version.]