Search

The First Optional Protocol establishes an individual complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to complain to the Human Rights Committee about a violation of one or several of their rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Communications may only be submitted against a State that has ratified the First Optional Protocol and after domestic remedies have been exhausted. In addition, the claim should not have been submitted to another treaty body mechanism, nor to a regional mechanism such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, or the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

If the Committee finds that a State Party has failed in its obligations under the ICCPR, it will require that the violation be remedied and ask that the State Party provide follow-up information in this regard. The Human Rights Committee's decisions and its follow-up activities are made public and are included in the Committee's Annual Report to the General Assembly.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure from 19 December 2011 (see http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/signature/2012/CTC_4-11d.pdf) establishes an individual complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to complain to the Committee on the Rights of the Child about a violation of the Convention or any one of the Optional Protocols to which the State is a party. Before submitting a complaint, domestic remedies have to be exhausted, unless these would be unreasonably prolonged or not effective. The complaint should also not have been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.

If the Committee finds that a State Party has failed in its obligations under the CRC or its Optional Protocols, it will require that the violation be remedied and ask the State Party to provide follow-up information in this regard. The decisions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and its follow-up activities are made public and are included in the Committee' Annual Report to the General Assembly.

At the time of writing (August 2012), the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure was not yet in force, as it had not yet been ratified by more than 10 States. Check for the status of ratification at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-...

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established along with the Human Rights Council by resolution 60/251 in 2006 and is a unique mechanism of the United Nations human rights system which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States once every 4½ years, based on the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and any other human rights instruments to which the State under review is a party, and voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State. During the review process, other States examine the human rights practice of a State under review based on information provided by the State, a compilation of relevant UN documents prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) and information provided by other stakeholders, including NGOs (compiled by the OHCHR).

Other states may ask questions and make recommendations, which the State under review may accept or reject. The result of this review is reflected in an “outcome report” listing the recommendations made to the State under review. Until the next due review, the State under review has now four years time to implement the accepted recommendations and fulfil its voluntary pledges.

The second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review started at the 13th session of the Human Rights Council in May 2012, and will run until November 2016.
Information, including a timetable of the current review cycle, is available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx.

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. It was formerly known as the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance and was originally created by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The mandate is primarily based on article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 of the ICCPR and the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
The mandate holder is appointed to identify and examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world which are inconsistent with the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur recommends remedial measures as appropriate which includes transmitting urgent appeals (to try to prevent human rights violations) and letters of allegation (about events which have occurred) to States. Furthermore the mandate holder undertakes fact-finding country visits and submits reports on them to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly as well as annual reports, highlighting state practice, trends and individual cases, and thematic studies.
As conscientious objection as a human rights falls under the right to freedom of thought, religion, or belief, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs has the mandate most closely related to conscientious objection to military service, and takes up most regularly issues of conscientious objection. Cases of non-religious conscientious objectors might however, be a little more difficult, although theoretically they fall under the mandate.

The Complaint Procedure of the Human Rights Council is a confidential procedure to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested human rights violations. It is therefore not suitable for individual cases except when they are representative of a pattern of reliably attested human rights violations.
The Complaint Procedure is of confidential nature and the lodging of communications should not be made public. While the complainant might be informed whether a complaint has been taken up by the procedure, the steps taken and the outcome of the complaint remain confidential, unless the Human Rights Council decides to consider the complaint in public.
The Complaint Procedure was introduced by resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council - UN Human Rights Council: Institution Building – from 18 June 2007, and replaces the former 1503 procedure.

Under the ACHPR, states are required to submit reports to the African Commission on measures taken to ensure that the rights enshrined in the African Charter are being implemented. The state reporting procedure is considered as a dialogue, in which the state concerned and the African Commission exchange their views. The state report is published by the African Commission prior to the session, to give civil society the opportunity to comment on the report of the state.

The state report is reviewed in public, and following the dialogue the African Commission will issue "Concluding Remarks/Observations" to the state concerned. The state's report and the Concluding Remarks/Observations are transmitted to the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, and are only later published by the African Commission.

So far, conscientious objection to military service has not been addressed by the African Commission.

The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) draws its mandate from articles 32-46 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC). It was established in July 2001. Part of the mandate of the ACERWC is the monitoring the implementation of the ACRWC. To do so, the ACERWC receives and examines the reports submitted by State parties on the measures they have adopted to give effect to the provisions of the Charter as well as the progress achieved in the exercise of the rights recognised (article 43). Initial State reports were supposed to be submitted within two years of entry into force of the ACRWC, and periodic reports every three years thereafter. An overview of the status of state reports in available on the website of the ACERWC at http://acerwc.org/state-reports/. The due dates of initial reports are available at http://www.africa-union.org/child/Due%20date%20of%20Submission%20of%20Re....
The ACERWC examines a State report in a public plenary session, based on information included in the report of the State, and other information received by NGOs. Following the examination of the State report, the Committee of Experts produces Concluding Observations and Recommendations, which should be implemented by the State party. The Concluding Observations and Recommendations are also included in the report of the ACERWC to the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government.

So far, conscientious objection to military service has not been addressed by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The issue of recruitment of minors has only briefly been addressed during the examination of the report of Uganda.

According to the Supplementary Protocol from 19 January 2005, “the Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violations of human rights that occur in any Member State.” There is no requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, meaning individuals do not need to pursue national judicial remedies before bringing a claim to the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Rather, the principal requirements are that the application not be anonymous and that the matter is not pending before another international court.
A case can be brought by anyone under the jurisdiction of a member state of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). However, according to article 12 of the Protocol establishing the Court of Justice, representation by an agent or lawyer is required.
The reference framework of the Community Court of Justice are the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), as well as other universal instruments for the protection of human rights adopted by the United Nations.
Proceedings before the court consist of written and oral proceedings, after which the Court will hand down its judgment in open Court. Judgements of the Court are binding on each Member State, institutions of ECOWAS and on individuals.
More information is available at the website of the Community Court of Justice at http://www.courtecowas.org/.

According to article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “any person or group of persons or non-governmental entity legally recognized in one or more of the Member States of the OAS may submit petitions to the Commission, on their behalf or on behalf of third persons, concerning alleged violations of a human right recognized in, as the case may be, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention on Human Rights”.
A petition can only be lodged after domestic remedies have been exhausted, and has to be lodged within six months after the final judgment. In addition, the subject of the petition or communication should not be pending in another international settlement procedure.
For those member States of the OAS that have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, this will be the legal reference for evaluating a petition. For those who did not, it will be the 1948 Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (the American Declaration). In addition, any additional Inter-American human rights protocol ratified by a State can form the basis of a petition.
After a petition has been declared admissible, the Inter-American Commission proceeds to analyse the alleged human rights violations in detail. It might also attempt to reach a “Friendly Settlement” between the parties concerned. If the Inter-American Commission finds a violation of rights protected under the relevant human rights treaty, it will issue a report on the merits, which will include recommendations to the State aimed at ending the human rights violations, making reparations, and/or making changes to the law.
If a State does not comply with the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission, the Commission may decide to publish the case or to refer it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, if it concerns a State party that has accepted the Court's jurisdiction.

The post of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe was created by a resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 May 1999.
According to the mandate, the Commissioner for Human Rights, shall, besides promoting human rights, and supporting human rights education, “identify possible shortcomings in the law and practice of member States concerning the compliance with human rights as embodied in the instruments of the Council of Europe, promote the effective implementation of these standards by member States and assist them, with their agreement, in their efforts to remedy such shortcomings”.
As part of the mandate, the Commissioner carries out visits to all member states of the Council of Europe to monitor and evaluate the human rights situation.
While according to article 1 (2) of the mandate “the Commissioner shall not take up individual complaints”, he or she can draw conclusions from human rights violations in individual cases. Part of the mandate of the Commissioner for Human Rights is to engage with Human Rights Defenders in the member states of the Council of Europe, and to meet with a broad range of defenders during his or her country visits and to report publicly on the situation of human rights defenders.
The Commissioner for Human Rights publishes opinions, reports on country visits, thematic reports, and annual reports regarding the situation of human rights in the member states of the Council of Europe.

The Ibero-American Convention on the Rights of Youth (see English version: http://scout.org/content/download/22369/200853/file/IBEROAMERICAN%2520CO...) was signed in 2005 in the Spanish city of Badajoz, and came into force on 1 March 2008. It applies those States that have ratified it, and is limited to the Ibero-American region, which also includes Spain, Portugal, and Andorra in Europe.
The Ibero-American Youth Convention defines “youth” as young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years.
The Ibero-American Youth Convention recognises explicitly in its article 12 the right to conscientious objection, and prohibits the recruitment of under-18s:
1. Youth have the right to make conscientious objection towards obligatory military service.
2. The States Parties undertake to promote the pertinent legal measures to guarantee the exercise of this right and advance in the progressive elimination of the obligatory military service.
3. The States Parties undertake to assure youth under 18 years of age that they shall not be called up or involved, in any way, in military hostilities.
While there is currently no mechanism to monitor the Ibero-American Youth Convention, ratifying States are required to submit a report every two years to the Secretary General of the Ibero-American Youth Organisation. The Secretary General in turn reports to the biannual conference of Ibero-American Ministers with responsibility for youth policy.