Human Rights Committee

Ninety-eighth Session

2711^th & 2712^th Meetings* (AM & PM)

Monitoring Body for Civil, Political Rights Covenant Continues Reading of Draft

 

General Comment on Article 19 concerning Freedom of Opinion, Expression

 

Also Hears Progress Report from Special Rapporteur on Follow Up to Views

The Human Rights Committee today continued its read-through of its draft “general comment” on article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ‑‑ dealing with the right to freedom of opinion and expression ‑‑ approving language for two more sections in the “first reading” draft of the 54-paragraph text.

Given concerns expressed at the last public meeting on this comment that paragraph 20 ‑‑ “freedom of expression and political rights” ‑‑ was too brief, Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, and the Committee’s Rapporteur on the general comment, proposed adding two sentences after the first one:  “The free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential.  This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion.”

The Committee agreed to this addition, adopting that paragraph and turning to the next section on “limitations on freedom of expression”, which Mr. O’Flaherty said marked a turning point in terms of the general comment’s thematic contents towards limitations and restrictions.  During their subsequent discussion, Committee members wrestled over whether and how to modify the restrictions included in article 19.

At the outset, Ruth Wedgwood, expert from the United States, said in this section particularly, order was important and she was hesitant to start it with a neon headline saying “limitations on freedom of expression”.  She preferred a very strict reference to article 19 paragraph 3, rather than its reference to limitations.  “We are sending a pro-censorship message with the present order of the text,” she said.

As they took up paragraph 21 specifically, several experts also stressed that the concepts of “special duties” and “special responsibilities” deserved particular attention.  In that context, a number of them referred to article 5, suggesting that it provided useful guidance and should, perhaps, be referenced.

Ultimately, the Committee agreed to quote directly from the first paragraph of that article, which says:  “Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activities or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights or freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.”

The Committee also agreed to a proposal by Rasjoomer Lallah, expert from Mauritius, to amend the reference to “certain restrictions on the right” of freedom of expression in the first sentence of paragraph 21 so that it more strictly followed article 19.  To that end, it changed the end of that sentence to read:  “…and for this reason, two limitative areas of restrictions on the right are permitted which relate to the respect of the right or reputations of others and to the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals”.

Before paragraph 21 was adopted as amended, the Committee decided to postpone a decision on revising the header until after the entire section was agreed on.

The Committee also took up an amendment to the text proposed by Abdelfattah Amor, expert from Tunisia that read:  “Any reference to an individual’s political or other opinions in the files kept by agents of the private or public sector is not acceptable.  Furthermore, any reference to an individual’s political, religious or other opinion in identification documents is incompatible with article 19, paragraph 1.”

Discussing that proposed insert, several experts expressed concern about the broad nature of the language, while others believed “non-consensual dissemination” of information was implicit, but conceded that perhaps the language should be clarified.  Mr. Amor said all the remarks had been “useful and encouraging,” and he would, in response to another expert’s concerns, add language on electronic data to cover all aspects of “information”.  He was prepared to return to the matter when the Committee reconvened in July.

In other business, the 18-member expert panel, which concludes its annual New York session tomorrow, heard the progress report (document CCPR/C/98/3) of its Rapporteur for Follow-up to Views, Ms. Wedgewood, of the United States.  She said that, due to personal reasons, she had not been as active as she would have liked during the reporting period, so her presentation would be focused on what she planned to do in the coming months and when the Committee reconvened in Geneva.

She provided the Committee with brief status updates of individual communications received alleging violations of the Covenant by State parties, including Algeria; Belarus (2 cases); Cameroon (2 cases); Canada; Colombia; Croatia; Germany; Kyrgyzstan; New Zealand; Norway; Paraguay; Peru (2 cases); Russian Federation; Spain; Tajikistan (2 cases); Uzbekistan (3 cases); and Zambia.  The Committee approved her recommendations.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 26 March, to conclude its ninety-eight session.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2710^th Meeting was closed.

For information media • not an official record