Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Poverty - Homeless  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Ovi Greece
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
Stop violence against women
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations: Fiction? Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations: Fiction?
by Frantisek Brychta
2008-01-20 09:10:54
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Introduction

In October 2007 my article “Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations – only a Fiction?” was published in the OVI magazine. Mentioned article dealt with the difficulties connected with enforcement of human rights at the institutions established for the protection of human rights. Namely procedure before the European Court of Human Rights and procedure before the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were involved. I refer for other details to the article itself which is available here.


My new article links to my previous, above-mentioned, one. The aim of the article is to make readers acquainted with the way how my written notices and applications in relation to my petition of 20 September 2006 have been attended. First, I would like to state beforehand that I can duly document all the statements and facts by documentary proofs.

What preceded the submission of the Petition to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights?

First of all, I will give a short summary of what preceded to the procedure before the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations Organization. The origin of my efforts and applications to the international institutions lies in the Court ruling of the Constitution Court of the Czech Republic File No. I. ÚS 200/95 of 25 April 1996. In this
Court ruling the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided on the Court ruling of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 17/93. However, my constitutional complaint registered under File No. I. ÚS 200/96 was submitted against the Judgement of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 452/91. It is obvious, even for the person without education in law, that the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic itself has violated my right to a fair trial.

Since 1996 my constitutional complaint of the Judgement of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 452/91 has not been duly decided. Described state has been contrary not only to the laws of the Czech Republic, but also contrary to the international conventions by which the Czech Republic has been bound. For that reason I turned primarily to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I am sorry to say, the statements presented in many articles about the European Court of Human Rights have been proven true.

I can document by documentary proofs that the European Court of Human Rights has not been concerned with the content and subject of my complaint in my case at all. Also obvious, entirely inconsolable, situation in the matter of registration and record-keeping of the complaints is evident from the documentation received from the European Court of Human Rights. The last mentioned, inconsolable situation in the matter of registration and record-keeping of the complaints, significantly decreases probability that submitted complaint (application) will be duly and fairly heard (e. g. giving wrong dates, enclosing of other sent unrelated complaints (applications) as Enclosures to the previous complaint (application), and so on).

With regard to the fact that my applications for remedy were not met by the European Court, I turned with above shown matter to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2006. In my effort to enforce my right I turned also to other international organizations. Some of them have not answered me at all; some of them sent me only formal answers.
With respect to first reactions of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations Organization I believed that I finally had found an organization which would be duly concerned with the content of my complaint and would put it to due and fair process. I am sorry to say that it has soon come in sight how much I was blundering.

Procedure before the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

I submitted my Petition to the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights in September
2006. The Petition is dated 20 September 2006. I submitted my petition in harmony with a standard petition (given on the official web pages of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). In my petition there is described in detail the procedure which preceded the submission of my petition. A part of the petition specified, among others, the claims which I had made, when and with what results. Everything was duly documented by documentary proofs.

The Petition of 20 September 2006 with its 28 Enclosures was returned to me by the Petitions Unit to my address. In the envelope all documents which I sent were sent back to me. In this letter from the Petitions Unit I was informed that my Petitions did not meet requirements for its submission. I cannot agree with such a conclusion, as well as everybody who would be duly acquainted with the content of my complaint.

Procedure before the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has demonstrated bad record-keeping of complaints and wrong handling with the complaints of complainants. The procedure before the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has demonstrated also an unwillingness to respond to the application of the complainant. I base these statements on below shown documentary proofs:

a) In the envelope in which my Petition and all related documents were sent back to me there was a letter from the Petitions Unit dated 13 October 2005 – I did not make mistake, the letter from the Petition Unit was dated 13 October 2005. My Petition is specified in the letter from the Petitions Unit as Petition of 28 September 2005 (I repeat that the date given on my petition is 20 September 2006). I consider this fact as a proof demonstrating disorder in dating of the letters and as a proof of bad registration and record-keeping of the complaints.

b) The Petitions Unit has not met my application of 20 November 2006 yet. In this application I ask them for giving of concrete facts for which my Petitions was not accepted and was passed back to me. In this application I ask them also for specification of the page and relevant provision of the Petition for which my Petition was not accepted. Since the submission of my application more than one year has elapsed. I consider this fact as a proof demonstrating unwillingness to respond to applications of the complainants.

c) In next letter of 18 January 2007 the Petitions Unit has informed me that it registers my petition of 20 November 2006. However, I have never submitted any Petition dated 20 November 2006. That is why I asked the Petitions Unit for sending of a copy of this alleged petition in my Application of 26 January 2007. I have not received demanded copy of this Petition from the Petitions Unit yet. I consider this fact as a proof demonstrating wrong registration and record-keeping of the complaints and as a proof of unwillingness to respond to the applications of the complainants.

d) On 27 November 2007 I received a letter of 19 November 2007, reference: G/SO 215/51 CZE (GEN) MS/sn 1618/2007 from Mr. Ibrahim Salama (Chief of the Treaties and Council Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). In this letter Mr. Ibrahim Salama informs me, I quote, "Dear Mr. Brychta, I have the honour to inform you that your communication, dated 20 November 2006, submitted to the Human Rights Committee for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been registered as communication No. 1618/2007. ……. In accordance with rule 97 of the Committee's rules of procedure, a copy of the communication has been sent to the State party today, with the request that any information or observation in respect of the question of admissibility and merits of the communication should reach the Committee within six months. Any reply from the State party will be communicated to you in due course to enable you to comment thereon, if you so wish.unquote.

The only document dated 20 November 2006 which was sent to the Petitions Unit has been my application for a disclosure of information on the reasons of the return of my Petition dated 20 September 2006. My application of 10 December 2007 for sending of a copy of alleged petition of 20 November 2006 and a copy of communication dated 20 November 2006 has not been met yet. I consider this fact as a proof demonstrating wrong registration and record-keeping of the complaints and as a proof of unwillingness to respond to the applications of the complainants.

e) Written documents that I have received from the Petitions Unit prove bad record-keeping of my Petition of 20 September 2006 at the Petitions Unit. That is why I turned to
Mrs. Arbour – a High Commissioner of the United Nations Organization with a written application for remedy. Mrs. Arbour has not responded to my application of 04 June 2007 yet.

I consider this fact as a proof of unwillingness to respond to the applications of the complainants.

Conclusion

Many readers will come to a conclusion that every day more serious violations of human rights occur. However, I think that every human right deserves attention and it is necessary to try to the best to enforce and protect it. It seems that many international organizations, better to say their employees, omit the sense of the existence of these organizations. Maybe it is a result of absence of a classical control mechanism that is, up to a certain level, a consequence of their independence.

However, the independence must not result in arbitrariness of the employees of these organizations. Their decision has to be a result of a due and fair procedure. Without any doubts, one of the conditions for the existence of due and fair procedure has been also due registration, record-keeping and handling with complaints.

I think that publishing and presentation of difficulties and obvious injustice on the part of international organizations are effective means that can contribute to all of us – to you as present or potential complainant who aim or will aim at enforcement of the right but also to the international organizations themselves for initiation of improvements in their working.
I intend to continue in my efforts to reach my right.

Hence, I will appreciate all your advices and recommendations concerning possibilities how to reach my right. If you or your friends have similar experience, do not hesitate to present and publish them, if possible also with your proposals how to reach remedy.

*********************************************************************

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV -


    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(2)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2008-01-20 10:42:57
As already pointed out in the comment on the original article in October, the remedy will be difficult, if not impossible, to reach till it is universally acknowledged that no state, no institution, no bureaucracy should have the power to grant or withhold human rights, since in theory we are all born with them. They are inalienable. They hypocrisy shows up in the practice. So the ultimate crucial question is this: do we respect the truth or power? It is indeed logical that in a world where power reigns supreme the will to truth is often overlooked. There is a reason why some 90% of the constitions ever devised mention a Creator in their preambles. Their ideals seem to be thus better grounded.


Inga Barysheva2009-03-05 16:09:02
I've been used as substitute mother


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi