Solution of the Human Rights Problematic Questions

Created by M. Rana

Q1. Loveland, a UN member state and a state party to the International Covenant in Civil
Political Rights (ICCPR), is accused by several human rights NGOs of breaching the
prohibition of torture. The government of Loveland denies these accusations and states that:
Loveland is presently at war with a neighbouring state and has proclaimed a state of
emergency, accordingly it is in line with the ICCPR temporarily not obliged to uphold the
prohibition of torture. Give your arguments referring to relevant provision of ICCPR.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contains provisions that
prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment
(Article 7). These provisions are considered to be non-derogable, meaning that they cannot be
suspended or limited under any circumstances, including during times of war or emergency.
Article 4 of the ICCPR allows for the temporary suspension of certain rights in times of
emergency, but it specifically states that the rights protected under Article 6 (right to life),
Article 7 (prohibition of torture), and Article 8 (prohibition of slavery and servitude) cannot be
suspended.
Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is responsible for
interpreting and monitoring compliance with the ICCPR, has stated that the prohibition of
torture is an absolute and non-derogable right, and that no exceptional circumstances, including
war or a state of emergency, can be invoked to justify torture.
Therefore, based on the provisions of the ICCPR and the interpretation of the UN Human
Rights Committee, the government of Loveland would not be justified in temporarily
suspending the prohibition of torture during a state of emergency or a war. Any accusation of
torture should be investigated and those found responsible should be held accountable.

Q2. In September 2021, 3,000 families were given only 7 days prior notice before they were
evicted from the land next to the Chumki Airport of Myland. Their shelters were destroyed.
The Myland Airports Authority owned the plot of land next to the airport, but the resident
families of the Mitali Village had occupied the property for some time. The Mitali Welle
Society, the petitioner is an organzation comprised of residents of the former Mitali Village.
In 2019. Mitali Welfare Society sued the Myland Airports Authority, the Secretaries of
Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and Ministry of Lands, seeking an injunction to
stop the evictions, pending hearing and determination of the petition. The Court issued the
injunction hot the Myland Airports Authority disobeyed the court orders and forcefully
evicted the residents Mitali Welfare Society then revised their complaint and sought
declaratory relief, as well as compensation and reallocation of land. The District Court
issued declaratory relief and supervisory orders in favor of Mitali Welfare Society, but those
orders were then overturned by the High Court Division. The High Court certified the case
as one of general public importance due to the issue of evictions in Myland and based on
this decision, Mitali Welfare Society filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court. Give me the judgement with reference to the ICCPR.
As a member state of the United Nations, Myland is bound by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which includes provisions protecting the right to property
(Article 17) and the right to an effective remedy for the violation of rights (Article 2(3)).
In the case of the eviction of the residents of the Mitali Village, it appears that their right to
property was violated by the Myland Airports Authority, who owned the plot of land next to
the airport and ordered the eviction of the families without sufficient notice or compensation.
Additionally, the fact that the Myland Airports Authority disobeyed a court order granting an
injunction to stop the evictions, suggests that the residents were not provided with an effective
remedy for the violation of their rights.
The judgement of the District Court in favor of the Mitali Welfare Society, issuing declaratory
relief and supervisory orders, recognized the rights of the residents of Mitali Village and sought
to provide them with compensation and reallocation of land. However, the overturning of these
orders by the High Court Division, raises concerns about the effectiveness of the legal system
in Myland to provide an effective remedy for the residents of Mitali Village whose rights were
violated.
Based on the facts provided, the case raises serious concerns about the compliance of Myland
with its obligations under the ICCPR, specifically the right to property and the right to an
effective remedy. The decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court will be
important in determining whether Myland has fulfilled its obligations under the ICCPR in this
case.

Q3. A, a child failed to get admission to a school in his locality. B, the father of the child
files a case for violation of human rights. The management committee of the school
cancelled that it doesn't constitute a violation of rights. Advise B with the reference to the
international and Bangladesh human rights law.
Based on the information provided, it is unlikely that the failure of A to get admission to the
school constitutes a violation of human rights according to international and Bangladesh human
rights law.
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which
Bangladesh is a party, individuals have the right to education. However, this right is not an
absolute one and may be subject to certain limitations. In this case, it appears that the school in
question has a limited number of available spots, and the management committee has
determined that A did not meet the criteria for admission.
In Bangladesh, the Right to Education Act, 2009 guarantees the right to primary education for
all children. However, this does not guarantee admission to a specific school, as the school has
the right to determine its own admission criteria and procedures.
It is possible that B may argue that the school's admission process is discriminatory or arbitrary,
but without further information, it is difficult to say if this would be a valid claim.
In conclusion, while A has the right to education, the failure to get admission to a specific
school does not necessarily constitute a violation of human rights according to international
and Bangladesh human rights law. B may have other legal avenues to explore, such as
challenging the admission criteria or procedures of the school, but it is important to consult
with a lawyer before proceeding with any legal action.

Q4. A applied for a recruitment test but he did not receive the admit card. A alleged that it is
violation of his right. Advise A with relevant international and Bangladeshi human rights
law.
Based on the information provided, it is unlikely that the failure to receive an admit card for a
recruitment test constitutes a violation of human rights according to international and
Bangladeshi human rights law.
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which
Bangladesh is a party, individuals have the right to work and to equal opportunity in
employment. However, this right is not an absolute one and may be subject to certain
limitations. In this case, it appears that A did not receive an admit card for the recruitment test,
which is a necessary requirement to participate in the test.
In Bangladesh, the Constitution guarantees the right to work and the right to equal opportunity
in employment. However, as in the case of international law, these rights are not absolute and
may be subject to certain limitations.
It is possible that A may argue that the failure to receive an admit card constitutes
discrimination or arbitrary treatment, but without further information, it is difficult to say if
this would be a valid claim.
In conclusion, while A has the right to work and equal opportunity in employment, the failure
to receive an admit card for a recruitment test does not necessarily constitute a violation of
human rights according to international and Bangladeshi human rights law. A may have other
legal avenues to explore, such as challenging the recruitment process, but it is important to
consult with a lawyer before proceeding with any legal action.

Q5. A, an industry polluted the environment nearby and caused health hazard to B.B.
claimed it a violation of her right. Advise B with relevant international and Bangladeshi
human rights law.
Based on the information provided, it is likely that the pollution caused by the industry
constitutes a violation of B's human rights according to international and Bangladeshi human
rights law.
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which
Bangladesh is a party, individuals have the right to an adequate standard of living, including
the right to health. This includes the right to live in an environment that is not harmful to one's
health. The pollution caused by the industry may have resulted in a violation of B's right to
health by creating a health hazard.
In Bangladesh, the Constitution guarantees the right to life and the right to a healthy and safe
environment. The pollution caused by the industry may have resulted in a violation of B's right
to life by creating a health hazard and may also have violated the right to a healthy and safe
environment.
B may argue that the industry has failed to meet its environmental responsibilities, which is a
violation of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. B can seek legal remedies such as
compensation, injunctions and other legal remedies by filing a case in relevant court.
In conclusion, B has the right to live in an environment that is not harmful to one's health and
if the industry polluted the environment nearby and caused health hazard to B, it may be
violation of her right to life and right to healthy environment. B may seek legal remedies
through the relevant courts for the violation of her rights.

Q6. Mr. Kim, a Disturbian citizen claims to be a victim of violations by the Republic of
Disturbia of article Id, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The fact as submitted by Kim in his communication to the Human Rights Committee,
in brief, is that he is a founding member of the National Coalition for Democratic Movement
(NCDM). Together with other NCDM members, he prepared documents which criticized the
Government of the Republic of Disturbia and its foreign allies. At the inaugural meeting of
the NCDM on 21 January 1989, these documents were distributed and read out to
approximately 4.000 participants. Kim was arrested at the conclusion of the meeting on the
ground of violation of National Security Law. On 24 August 1990, a single judge on the
Criminal District Court of Disturbia found Kim guilty of offences against article 7,
paragraphs I and 5, of the National Security Law and sentenced him to three years
imprisonment. The Appeal Section of the same tribunal dismissed Mr. Kim's appeal on 11
January 1991, but reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment. On 26 April 1991, the
Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal. It is submitted that the author has exhausted all
available domestic remedies. Government of the Republic of Disturbia argues that as the
communication is based on events which occurred prior to the entry into force of the
Covenant and its First Optional Protocol for the Republic of Disturbia on 10 July 1990, the
complaint is inadmissible ratione temporis. Examine the admissibility of Mr. Kim's
communication submitted to the Human Rights Committee.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its First Optional
Protocol, which established the Human Rights Committee, only apply to events that occurred
after the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for a particular state. In the case
of Disturbia, the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force on July 10, 1990.
Mr. Kim's communication to the Human Rights Committee is based on events that occurred
prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Disturbia.
Specifically, he was arrested and convicted for his actions at a meeting on January 21, 1989,
and his appeals were dismissed on January 11, 1991, and April 26, 1991.
Therefore, based on the facts provided, Mr. Kim's communication is inadmissible ratione
temporis, as the events on which the communication is based occurred prior to the entry into
force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Disturbia and the Human Rights
Committee does not have jurisdiction over such events.

Q7. Some regions in the My land have been affected by severe drought. The peasants in
those areas bad consumed all their food reserves as a result of the drought. They sought the
help of government agency in charge of public emergency supplies in the region. They met
with the officials several times who announced that the peasants would get paddy on a loan-
base to be paid back after the next crop. But these promises were never kept. The peasants
also received reports regarding transportation of paddy from storage places to other places
and suspected that some shady deals were taking place behind their backs. Meanwhile, the
community also witnessed death of children and elderly persons as a result of starvation. Not
willing to tolerate any more the apathy of the government agency, about 1,500 peasants
gathered in front of the storage house and took the paddy and distributed it in an orderly
fashion. The paddy was distributed to the members of the community as a loan as agreed
upon with the officials previously. The following day, the government arrested 21 peasant
leaders and charged for robbery. Most of the paddy was also collected back from the
community. You are a lawyer on behalf of the peasants. What will be your arguments against
the charges of robbery by invoking the economic, social and cultural rights framework and
respective govemment obligations?
As a lawyer representing the peasants, I would argue that the charges of robbery against them
should be dropped, as their actions were necessary in order to fulfill their economic, social, and
cultural rights as recognized under international human rights law.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) guarantees the
right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food, and obligates states to take
steps to the maximum of their available resources to achieve this right. In this case, the severe
drought in the region affected the peasants' ability to access an adequate standard of living, as
they had consumed all their food reserves and were facing starvation. The failure of the
government agency to fulfill their promises of providing paddy on a loan basis, and reports of
shady deals regarding the transportation of paddy, further exacerbated the situation.
Furthermore, the ICESCR also recognizes the right to self-determination of peoples, which
includes the right of peoples to take collective action to realize their economic, social and
cultural rights. In this case, the community of peasants took collective action to ensure that they
would have access to the food they needed to survive by taking the paddy from the storage
house. Additionally, the distribution of paddy was on the basis of loan agreement, which was
previously agreed upon with the officials, and the distribution was done orderly.
Given these circumstances, the actions of the peasants can be considered as an exercise of their
rights to an adequate standard of living and self-determination, rather than a criminal act of
robbery. As such, the charges against them should be dropped, and the government should take
steps to ensure that the economic, social, and cultural rights of the affected communities are
fulfilled, especially in the context of natural disasters or emergencies.

Q8. Bangladesh is duty bound to ensure independence of judiciary and impartial trial as per
undertaking of articles 2 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
16th amendment of the Constitution gave power to the Jatiyo Shangshad to remove judges
if allegations of incapability or misconduct against them are proved. Recently the apex court
or Bangladesh had scrapped the amendment and said it was unconstitutional and void as it
creates a threat to the basic pillar of Constitution 'independence of judiciary. Against this
backdrop, how would you reconcile between independence of judiciary, principle of
accountability of judges of the Superior Court and the theory of separation of power with
checks and balances?
Reconciling the principle of independence of the judiciary with the principle of accountability
of judges of the Superior Court and the theory of separation of power with checks and balances
can be a complex issue.
Article 2 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that states
party to the Covenant, including Bangladesh, must ensure the independence of the judiciary
and the right to a fair trial. This means that judges must be free from external influence or
pressure in the exercise of their judicial functions, and that the process for removing them from
office must not undermine this independence.
The 16th amendment of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gave the Jatiyo Shangshad
(parliament) the power to remove judges if allegations of incapability or misconduct against
them are proved, has been scrapped by the apex court of Bangladesh as it creates a threat to the
basic pillar of Constitution 'independence of judiciary.' The court stated that this amendment
would allow the executive branch of government to exert undue influence on the judiciary,
which would undermine the independence of the judiciary.
In order to reconcile the principle of independence of the judiciary with the principle of
accountability of judges and the theory of separation of power with checks and balances, it may
be necessary to establish an independent and impartial mechanism for the investigation and
adjudication of allegations of incapacity or misconduct against judges. This mechanism should
be insulated from political or executive influence, and should ensure that the process for
removing judges is fair, transparent and in compliance with international human rights
standards.
One potential solution could be the establishment of an independent judicial council or
commission, composed of both judicial and non-judicial members, which would have the
authority to investigate and make recommendations on allegations of incapacity or misconduct
against judges. This council or commission would operate independently from the executive
and legislative branches of government, and would be subject to oversight by the judiciary.
Another solution could be the establishment of an independent judicial ombudsman, who
would be responsible for receiving and investigating complaints against judges. This
ombudsman would have the authority to make recommendations to the judiciary or other
relevant authorities on how to address any identified issues or concerns
Additionally, it's important to also note that, any mechanism established to investigate and
adjudicate allegations of misconduct or incapacity against judges should be provided with the
necessary resources, including human, financial and technical resources, to effectively carry
out its mandate.
It's also important to ensure that any removal of judge should be done through the proper legal
channels and should be based on clear and objective criteria, such as a judge's inability to
perform their duties or a violation of judicial ethics, and not for political reasons or as a form
of retaliation.

Q9. Mr. Soobramoney is a diabetic who suffers from ischaemic heart disease and cerebro-
vasculur disease. His kidneys failed in 1996 and his condition has been diagnosed as
irreversible, lie asked to be admitted to the dialysis program ofthe Addington Hospital (a
state hospital). He was informed (hat he did not qualify for admission. Addington Hospital,
like many stale hospitals, has a severe shortage of dialysis machines and trained nursing
staff. Because of limited resources the hospital has adopted a policy of admitting only those
patients who can be cured within a short period and those with chronic renal failure who
are eligible for a kidney transplant. Mr. Soobramoney cannot be cured in a short period and
is not eligible for a transplant because of his heart condition. Mr. Soobramoney applied to
the Durban High Court claiming that lie had a right to receive renal dialysis treatment from
the hospital in terms of s 27(3) (which provides that no- one may be refused emergency
medical treatment) anti s 11 (the right to life) of the 19% Constitution. I he application was
dismissed. On appeal lire Constitutional Court held that the right not to be refused
emergency medical treatment meant that a person who suffers a sudden catastrophe which
calls for immediate medical attention should not he denied ambulance or other emergency
services which are available and should not be turned away from a hospital which is able
provide the necessary treatment, Mr. Sookinmoncy suffers from chronic renal failure and
will require dialysis treatment two to three times a week to keep him alive. The Court decided
that this was not an emergency which called I'm immediate remedial treatment. The Court
held that the tight could not mean that the treatment of terminal illnesses had to he
prioritised over other forms of medical certificate such as preventative health care. It also
held that the right not be refused emergency medical treatment was independent limn the
right to life and had to he interpreted in the context of the availability of health services
generally.
The Court went on to consider whether Mr. Soobramoney ought to receive dialysis treatment
at a state hospital in accordance with (he provisions of the Constitution which entitle
everyone to have access to health care services provided by the stale (s 27). The Court noted
that the slate has a constitutional obligation within its available resources to provide health
care, as well as sufficient food and water and social security. The Court found, however, that
the Department of Health in KwaZulu-Natal does not have sufficient funds to cover the cost
of services being provided to the public. Last year it overspent its budget by R152 million and
it is anticipated that overspending will increase to R700 million in the current year. The renal
unit of (he Addington Hospital is already under-resourced and 70 percent of people who,
like Mr Soobramony, suffer from chronic renal failure have to be turned away. The 20
dialysis machines at its disposal should ideally serve only 60 patients, but already cater for
85 patients. The Court held that if treatment had to be provided to Mr. Soobramony it would
also have to be provided to all others in a similar position and the resources available to
Addington Hospital could not accommodate the demand. Furthermore, the cost of providing
renal dialysis twice a week to a single patient is 60000 per annum and to expand the
programme to cover everyone who requires renal dialysis would make substantial inroads
into the health budget and prejudice other obligations which the stale has to meet.
The Court held that the responsibility for making the difficult decisions of fixing the health
budget and deciding upon the priorities that needed to be met lay with political organs and
the medical authorities and added that (he Court would be slow to interfere with such
decisions if they were rational and taken in good faith. The Court concluded that it had not
been shown that the slate's failure to provide renal dialysis facilities for all persons suffering
from chronic renal failure constitutes a breach of its constitutional obligations.
Write a review of the case referring to pertinent provisions of the International Covenant on
Economic. Social and Cultural Rights.
The case of Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal, deals with the issue of access
to health care and the right to life in the context of limited resources and competing priorities.
The case centers around Mr. Soobramoney, a diabetic patient suffering from ischemic heart
disease and cerebro-vascular disease, whose kidneys failed in 1996 and whose condition has
been diagnosed as irreversible. He applied to the Durban High Court for admission to the
dialysis program at the Addington Hospital, a state-run hospital, but was denied admission due
to limited resources and a policy of only admitting patients who can be cured within a short
period or who are eligible for a kidney transplant.
The case raises several important issues related to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 12 of the ICESCR recognizes the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
This includes the right to access health care services, and the obligation of states to ensure the
availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of such services. Article 2 of the ICESCR
also requires states to take steps to the maximum of their available resources to achieve
progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant.
Furthermore, Article 2 of the ICESCR obligates States Parties to take steps "to the maximum
of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant." This means that the state is required to make efforts
to ensure the availability of healthcare services, even if it may not be able to fully realize this
right immediately. In this case, the court notes that the state is facing budget constraints and
that providing dialysis treatment to all patients suffering from chronic renal failure would make
a significant dent in the health budget, which would have a detrimental effect on the ability to
meet other obligations.
In conclusion, the case of Mr. Soobramoney highlights the tension between the right to access
healthcare services and the limited resources available to the state. The International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes the right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health in Article 12. This includes the right to access
healthcare services, but also acknowledges that the realization of this right may be subject to
available resources. The ICESCR also acknowledges the state's obligation to take steps to the
maximum of its available resources to achieve the full realization of this right. In this case, the
court found that the state did not have sufficient resources to provide dialysis treatment for Mr.
Soobramoney and all other individuals in similar situations. While the state's failure to provide
this treatment may not constitute a violation of the ICESCR, it does highlight the ongoing
challenges in balancing the state's obligations to provide access to healthcare with the limited
resources available.

Q10. Tom is a member of a group dedicated to the reintroduction or the criminalisation of

'homosexuality' within the UK. As part of its campaign, Tom distributes leaflets describing
how 'gays are a threat to society spreading diseas and immorality and should be eliminated.
Along with the leaflet is a website address that contains lists of know 'gay clubs and a link
to a site on bomb making. 'flic leaflet asks that concerned citizens should go to the links to
And ways to 'deal' with the 'scourge' if the politicians don't listen. Tom is arrested by the
police, is charged, and found guilty under incitement to hatred legislation. Unknown to Tom,
the group he was a member of had been under surveillance by police for some time. The
power that allowed the police to intercept communications data gave the police power to do
so where there was a threat to the public good'. Whilst in prison in October 2014, Tom is
subjected to a severe beating by other prisoners, which included being made to perform lewd
acts. He wishes to see a lawyer to consult on a possible negligence case against the prison as
lie was left alone without guards despite having been threatened by the prisoners who
attacked him earlier that week. Tom's letter to a solicitor is intercepted and he is not given
permission to see a solicitor. In November 2014 Tom is refused leave to appeal his conviction.
Tom applies to the European Court of Human Rights in January 2015. Advise Tom.
It appears that Tom is facing a few legal issues:
1. Incitement to hatred legislation: Under European human rights law, freedom of
expression is protected, but it is not absolute and may be restricted in certain
circumstances such as incitement to hatred or violence. The European Court of Human
Rights has held that the right to freedom of expression does not extend to the
distribution of leaflets that incite hatred or violence against a particular group of people.
 Therefore, Tom's conviction under incitement to hatred legislation is likely to be upheld
as it was aimed at inciting hatred against the LGBT community.
2. Prison beating: Under the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, states are obliged to prevent and punish acts of
torture or ill-treatment. Tom may have a case for negligence against the prison for
failing to protect him from the beating by other prisoners. He should be allowed to seek
legal advice and file a complaint.
3. Refusal of leave to appeal: Under European human rights law, everyone has the right
to a fair trial and the right to appeal a conviction. Tom may have grounds to argue that
his right to a fair trial was violated as a result of the refusal of leave to appeal. He should
be allowed to seek legal advice and file an application to the European Court of Human
Rights.
4. Interception of communications: Under European human rights law, everyone has
the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The police
should have a legal basis for intercepting communications and should not do so
arbitrarily. Tom may have grounds to argue that his right to privacy was violated by the
interception of his letter to the solicitor. He should be allowed to seek legal advice and
file an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
In general, Tom should be given access to legal representation and allowed to file
complaints and applications to the European Court of Human Rights and other relevant
bodies. He should also be protected from further harm and harassment while in prison.
Since Tom has been denied access to legal representation and didn’t get proper protection
while in prison, he can take the following steps:

• File a complaint with the prison authorities or the relevant government agency
responsible for overseeing prisons. He should provide evidence of the denial of
access and the reasons for it.
• Seek assistance from a legal aid organization or pro bono lawyer who may be able
to provide him with representation.
• File an application to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that his right
to a fair trial and the right to access to justice have been violated by the denial of
access to legal representation.
• File a complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and
Lawyers or other relevant UN bodies, alleging that his right to a fair trial and access
to justice has been violated by the denial of access to legal representation.
It's important to note that these steps may take time and may not guarantee a favorable
outcome, but they are options available to him to ensure that his rights are protected and
that he has access to justice.

Q11. The author, a teacher, files a communication to the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
stating that she lives outside Disturbia because of the political persecution which opponents
of the present regime generally face in Disturbia., She adds that she left the country with a
valid Disturbian passport. Upon expiration of this passport she was issued a new passport by
the Disturbian Consulate General in Rome, Italy, on 2 May 2010, The author submits that
on 21 June 1982 she presented herself at the Uruguayan Consulate in Barcelona and
requested a certificate of her Uruguayan citizenship which she needed for an entry visa to
France. She was requested by the consular officer to present her passport, which the
consular officer subsequently refused to return, indicating to her that tire passport had been
wrongly issued. No further explanation was given. A letter dated 23 June 2012, which author
sent to the Disturbian Consulate through a notary public by registered mail and in which
she asked that her passport be returned or a written explanation given for its retention,
remained unanswered. The author claims that the confiscation of her valid passport by the
Disturbian Consulate in Barcelona, Spain, constituted an illegal seizure. She affirms that
there are no domestic remedies which could lie effectively pursued in her case. She also
indicates that she has not submitted the same matter to another procedure of international
investigation or settlement. By a note dated 13 March 2013 Disturbia objects to the
competence of the Human Rights Committee on the ground that the communication does
not meet the requirements for admissibility laid down in article I of the Optional Protocol as
author "is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Disturbia against which she is making her
allegations". The author rejects the Stale party's contention that the communication is
inadmissible because she does not come within its jurisdiction in the matter concerned. She
maintains that with respect to the granting of a passport, the Disturbia authorities are fully
competent to issue a passport outside Disturbia as well as inside.
How would you decide the admissibility of the communication if you were a member of the
HRC?
As a member of the Human Rights Committee, I would consider the admissibility of the
communication by evaluating whether it meets the requirements laid out in article 1 of the
Optional Protocol. These requirements include that the communication be made by an
individual who claims to be the victim of a violation of his or her human rights, and that the
communication be made to the HRC within a reasonable time and that the matter has not been
previously examined by another international procedure.
In this case, the author claims to be a victim of political persecution and has submitted a valid
passport issued by the Disturbian Consulate General in Rome. The author also claims that her
passport was confiscated by the Disturbian Consulate in Barcelona without explanation,
constituting an illegal seizure. The author further states that there are no domestic remedies
that can be effectively pursued in her case, and that she has not submitted the same matter to
another international procedure.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the communication meets the requirements
for admissibility laid out in article 1 of the Optional Protocol and thus, I would vote in favor of
the admissibility of the communication.
In addition to the above, I would also consider the objection raised by Disturbia that the
communication does not meet the requirements for admissibility because the author is not
subject to the jurisdiction of Disturbia. The author maintains that with respect to the granting
of a passport, the Disturbian authorities are fully competent to issue a passport outside Disturbia
as well as inside.
As a member of the HRC, I would review the laws and regulations related to passport issuance
in Disturbia to determine the jurisdiction of Disturbian authorities in issuing passports to
individuals outside of Disturbia. If it is found that Disturbian authorities have the jurisdiction
to issue passports to individuals outside of Disturbia, then this would strengthen the argument
for the admissibility of the communication.
It would also be important for me to consider the evidence provided by the author to support
her claims of political persecution and illegal seizure of her passport. If the evidence provided
is credible and establishes a violation of her human rights, this would also support the
admissibility of the communication.
In conclusion, as a member of the HRC, I would carefully consider all the information
provided, including the laws and regulations related to passport issuance in Disturbia, the
evidence provided by the author, and the objections raised by Disturbia before making a
decision on the admissibility of the communication.

Q12. Mr. X, a Blue Land citizen brought a communication before the Human Rights
Committee claiming to be the victim of violations by Blue Land of articles 7. 9 (1), (2) and
(5), 10 (1) and 17 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. Owing to the armed conflict between military and insurgents
prevailing in Blue Land, the State party authorities declared a state of emergency in
November 2001. The ordinance of 2001 on terrorist and disruptive activities allowed State
agents to arrest Individuals on the basis of mere suspicion of involvement in terrorist
activities, and various constitutionally granted human rights and freedoms were suspended.
During the conflict. practice of torture, illegal detention, extrajudicial killing, inhuman
treatment of persons in detention and enforced disappearance became common and widely
used by both parties (military and insurgents) to the Despite the end of the conflict and the
signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, the practices of torture and
arbitrary detention remain prevalent. The author worked as a porter and cook for a trekking
business in Joribooti, Redmandu District. On 18 July 2007 at around 8.30 p.m. As author
was walking home, a group of police officers approached him and asked him for a bribe.
When the author refused to give them money, the officers beat him and arrested him without
[Link] an arrest warrant or informing him of the grounds for the arrest. The author was
dragged to Joribooti police station, where he was again severely beaten until he lost
consciousness. He was released the following day at 6 p.m. without charges, after a large
crowd asking for his release had started gathering in front of the police station where he was
detained. A few hours after his release, the author was admitted to the emergency ward of
the Redmandu teaching hospital. In the report produced by the hospital it is stated that
author was affected by "pain and bruises on the whole body and extremities caused by
physical assault". As a consequence of his arrest and the injuries suffered, the author lost
his job, which was very demanding physically. On 20 July 2007, the Metropolitan Police
Circle action against one of the police officers, a sub-inspector, who had beaten the author.
However, the decision was quashed by the Metropolitan Police Range on the basis of lack of
evidence.
The author notes that torture is not criminalized under Blue Land law. Redress can be
sought only in the form of compensation and disciplinary action as provided in the
Compensation relating to Torture Act of 1996. On 15 August 2007, the author filed a
complaint with the Ramendu Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court against the sub-
inspector
A decision was rendered on 7 July 2008, which recognized that torture had been inflated on
the. author and provided for compensation of BLC 24,000 (about US $300). The author
received this amount from Home Ministry in August 2010. The Court considered, however,
that "further [disciplinary] action against the sub-inspector was unnecessary". On 24
September 2008, the author filed an appeal with the Redinandu Sessions Court claiming that
no effective disciplinary on had been taken against the perpetrator and that the
compensation was not proportionate to the seriousness of the acts and tire damage suffered.
On 19 June 2009, the Session Court upheld decision of the CMM Court. On 17 September
2009, the author filed a complaint before the Court for a re-evaluation of the case, arguing
that the two decisions were not in line with international standards The author also states
that the existence of the Compensation relating to Torture Act hinders the possibility to start
an action to seek criminal prosecution. Consequently, there are no remedies available to him
to begin a criminal prosecution for torture or other forms of abuse. To obtain compensation,
the author has submitted his case to all three judicial instances available in Blue Land under
the Compensation relating to Torture Act. The Act, however, is not a legislative measure that
provides for criminal proceedings; it offers only disciplinary action, a remedy inappropriate
for the crime of torture. In the author's case, even that inadequate remedy is ineffective,
since the sanction against the offender was not enforced in the end. Furthermore, the author
argues that the minimal amount of 24,000 BLC afforded by the courts as compensation
cannot be deemed an effective remedy. The author concludes that the lack of provisions
under Blue Land legislation allowed for criminal prosecution for those found responsible
for acts of torture renders domestic remedies for the author unavailable. The failure to
implement decisions related to administrative sanctions for the perpetrators of torture and
to award satisfactory and proportionate compensation and integral reparation, including
rehabilitation, to the victims renders the existing, albeit inadequate, remedies ineffective. He
thus submits that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies should be considered
fulfilled and the communication deemed admissible.
On 4 October 2011, the State party submitted its observations relating to the 2007 events,
challenging the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies, abuse of the right of submission and an ill-founded and Ill-substantiated
communication. It states that there are several other statutory mechanisms to address
violations of rights, In addition to the regular court mechanism. The State party notes that
the national Human Rights Commission Act of 1997, and that it is vested with the statutory
power to conduct enquiries into human rights violations, to require any person to appear
before it and to gather receive, examine and assess information and evidence. The
Commission can recommend that the Government give compensation to a victim and
punish_perpetrators. The State party further states that the communication to be
inadmissible on the ground, that the author has received sufficient compensation and proper
Justice at the domestic level. It contends that the author has intentionally misrepresented the
law as well as hi, position, thereby abusing his right to submit a communication, which is
ill-founded and not sufficiently substantiated. How would you determine the admissibility of
the communication. if you were a member of the Human rights Committee?
As a member of the Human Rights Committee, I would consider the following factors when
determining the admissibility of the communication:
1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies: The author claims that there are no domestic
remedies available to him to begin a criminal prosecution for torture or other forms of
abuse. He argues that the lack of provisions under Blue Land legislation allowing for
criminal prosecution for those found responsible for acts of torture renders domestic
remedies unavailable. Additionally, the author claims that the failure to implement
decisions related to administrative sanctions for the perpetrators of torture and to award
satisfactory and proportionate compensation and integral reparation, including
rehabilitation, to the victims renders the existing, albeit inadequate, remedies
ineffective.
2. Abuse of the right of submission: The State party claims that the author has
intentionally misrepresented the law as well as his position, thereby abusing his right
to submit a communication, which is ill-founded and not sufficiently substantiated.
3. Admissibility under the Optional Protocol: The communication must meet the
requirements for admissibility laid down in article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
Based on the information provided, it appears that the author has exhausted domestic remedies
and the State party's claim of abuse of the right of submission is not sufficiently substantiated.
The communication meets the requirements of admissibility under the Optional Protocol.
Therefore, I would vote to find the communication admissible and proceed to consider the
merits of the case.

Q13. Zubaida is a Bangladeshi student doing her Masters in France. Recently her university
decided that no female student could wear Hijab. Since Zubaida wears Hijab as a part of her
religious belief, she wants to challenge her university's decision. What human rights can she
invoke and where can she go for remedy?
Zubaida, as a student, may invoke her right to freedom of religion and belief under Article 18
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that
"everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." This includes
the freedom to practice one's religion or belief, either individually or in community with others,
in public or private.
In addition to this, Zubaida may also invoke her right to education under Article 13 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which states that
"the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They
shall ensure the exercise of this right without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status."
With regards to the remedy, Zubaida can bring her case to the attention of the relevant national
human rights institutions in France, such as the National Human Rights Commission or the
Ombudsman. If the remedy is not satisfactory, Zubaida may also bring her case to the attention
of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies, such as the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which monitors the implementation of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or the Human
Rights Committee (HRC), which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR.
It's worth noting that if Zubaida chooses to challenge the decision, it would be important for
her to gather evidence that the university's decision to prohibit female students from wearing
hijab is in fact discriminatory, and that it is not a neutral policy. She would also need to show
that the university's decision is not a necessary and proportionate measure to achieve a
legitimate aim, such as ensuring safety or maintaining academic standards.

Q14. Medical care in the state of sweet land is delivered through two primary mechanisms.
Hospital services are funded under the Hospital Insurance Act by the government which
reimburses them for the medically required services provided to the public. Funding for
medically required services delivered by doctors and other health care practitioners is
provided by the Government Medical Service Plan (established and regulated by the Medical
and Health Care Services Art also known Medicare Protection Act). Neither programme
pays for medical interpreting services for the deaf.
The petitioner X was born deal and his preferred means of communication is sign language.
The contention was that the absence of interpreters impairs his ability to communicate with
the doctors and other health care providers and thus increases the risk of misdiagnosis and
ineffective treatment. The petitioner sought a declaration in the Supreme Court of Sweet
Land that the failure to provide language interpreters as an insured benefit under the
Medical Services Plan is unconstitutional and violates their right to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination under Article 27 of the Peoples' Republic of
Sweet Land Constitution.
The respondent government argued, inter alia, that, the provision of such a sign language
programme for the deaf would create a precedent for the funding of similar language serves
for non-official language speakers.
If you were a judge in this case how would you decide the case?
The judgement in this case would depend on the specific laws and regulations of Sweet Land,
as well as any relevant international human rights laws that may apply.
In terms of the right to access medical care, the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) guarantees the right to "the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health" for all individuals, without discrimination. This includes the right
to access medical care and information, and the right to communicate with health care providers
in a language that an individual understands.
In light of this, it could be argued that the government of Sweet Land has a duty to provide
language interpreting services for the deaf as part of its obligation to ensure the right to the
highest attainable standard of health for all individuals. This would be particularly important
in the case of the petitioner X, who was born deaf and relies on sign language as his preferred
means of communication.
In terms of the constitution of Sweet Land, Article 27 guarantees the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The failure to provide language
interpreting services for the deaf as part of the Medical Services Plan may be seen as a violation
of this right, as it disproportionately affects individuals who are deaf and relies on sign language
to communicate.
It is possible that the government's argument, that the provision of such a sign language
program for the deaf would create a precedent for the funding of similar language services for
non-official language speakers, may be a valid concern. However, it is important to note that
the provision of interpreting services for the deaf is not the same as providing services for
speakers of non-official languages. The deaf individuals rely on sign language as their primary
means of communication, and as such, it is necessary for the government of Sweet Land to
provide medical interpreting services for the deaf as a fundamental right of access to healthcare.
The failure to provide such services violates the right to equal protection and equal benefit of
the law without discrimination under Article 27 of the Peoples' Republic of Sweet Land
Constitution. Additionally, the lack of interpreters impairs the ability of deaf individuals like
the petitioner X to communicate with healthcare providers, increasing the risk of misdiagnosis
and ineffective treatment.

Q15. City Development Authority (CDA) sought to evict men, women and children from two
government buildings owned by CDA, to implement the Inner-City Refurbish Strategy.
Forced eviction would result in the residents becoming homeless or having to relocate to
slum areas on the far periphery of the city, and thus cut off from livelihood opportunities in
the city centre. How would you decide if you were responsible judge?
As a responsible judge, I would first consider the situation in light of international human rights
law. The right to adequate housing is recognized under Article 11 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which states that “the States Parties to the
present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself
and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement of living conditions.” Additionally, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights has stated that forced evictions are a violation of the right to adequate housing
and that evictions should only be carried out as a last resort, and with the provision of adequate
alternative housing.
In this case, it is clear that the proposed forced evictions would result in the residents becoming
homeless or having to relocate to slum areas on the far periphery of the city, cutting them off
from livelihood opportunities in the city center. This would clearly constitute a violation of the
right to adequate housing as recognized under international human rights law.
Furthermore, the CDA must consider the principle of non-discrimination as outlined in Article
2 of the ICESCR, which states that the rights recognized in the Covenant should be enjoyed
without discrimination of any kind. This principle is also reflected in Article 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 2 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In this case, it is possible that the residents being evicted are
disproportionately from marginalized communities, such as low-income families or ethnic
minorities, and their eviction would perpetuate discrimination against these groups.
Given the above, I would find that the proposed forced evictions are in violation of international
human rights law and therefore cannot be carried out. The CDA must consider alternative
solutions that do not involve forced evictions and instead prioritize the right to adequate
housing for all residents, including provision of alternative housing or compensation. The CDA
must also ensure that the rights of all residents, including marginalized communities, are
protected and respected during the implementation of the Inner-City Refurbish Strategy.

Q16. Some regions in Dreamland have been affected by severe drought. The peasants in
those areas had consumed all the food reserves as a result of the drought. They sought the
help of government agency in charge of public emergenc supplies in the region. They met
with the officials several times who announced that the peasants would get paddy on loan-
base to be paid back after the next crop. But those promises were never kept. The peasants
also received report regarding transportation of paddy from storage places to other places
and suspected that some shady deals were taking place behind their backs, Meanwhile, the
community also witnessed death of children and elderly persons as a result of starvation. Not
willing to tolerate any more the apathy of the government agency, about 1500 peasants
gathered in front of the storage house and took the paddy and distributed it in an orderly
fashion. The paddy was distributed to the members of the community as a loan as agreed
upon with the officials previously. The following day, the government arrested 21 peasant
leaders and charged for robbery. Most of the paddy was also collected back from the
community. You are a lawyer on behalf of the peasants. What will be your arguments against
the charges of the robbery by invoking the economic, social and cultural rights framework
and respective government obligations?
As a lawyer on behalf of the peasants, I would argue that the charges of robbery against the
peasant leaders are unjustified, as the actions taken by the community were a result of the
government's failure to fulfill their economic, social, and cultural rights obligations.
Firstly, I would argue that the government has an obligation to ensure the right to food for all
individuals under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), which states that "the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the
right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including
adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."
The severe drought in the region and the government's failure to provide food aid to the affected
communities resulted in the starvation of children and elderly persons, thereby violating the
right to food.
Secondly, I would argue that the government's failure to fulfill its promise to provide paddy on
loan-base to the affected communities and the suspicions of shady deals taking place behind
the community's back, constitute a violation of the right to participation in economic, social
and cultural life as outlined in Article 15 of the ICESCR.
In light of the government's failure to fulfill their obligations, the community's actions of taking
and distributing the paddy were a necessary and proportionate response to the emergency
situation they were facing. The distribution of the paddy as a loan, as agreed upon with the
officials previously, also supports the argument that the actions were not intended to be robbery
but rather an act of survival.
I would therefore argue that the charges of robbery against the peasant leaders must be dropped,
and the government must be held accountable for their failure to fulfill their economic, social
and cultural rights obligations. The government must also be held accountable for the shady
deals that have been taking place and ensure that the community is provided with the necessary
aid to prevent such a situation from happening again in the future.

Q17. The author of the communication to the Human Rights Committee is a political and
qualified lawyer. After the presidential Decree No. 12 of 3 May 2007 on certain measures
for the amelioration of the lawyers' and noteries activities in Myland, the author's lawyering
license was cancelled. He succeeded in the subsequent bar examination on 1 July, 1997, but
was not granted a lawyer's license.
The author believes that this is due to the fact that he had criticized openly the regime before.
The author learned later that on 7 July 2007 the Minister had postponed the decision to
grant him license when he discovered that the author had previously been fined by a court
for participating in an unauthorized street rally for the anniversary of the Myland
constitution.
On 30 July, 2007, the Minister refused to issue his license permanently on the ground that
he had breached the legislation and rules of professional ethics, based on the Regulations
on the Qualification Commission on Lawyers activities. These regulations had been adopted
by the Minister on 4 July 2007 and on 29 July 2007 the same minister modified them,
obtaining the prerogative to deny the issuance of licenses. The author claims that the
Minister only had the power to postpone or refuse his license after he had retaken the
examination, thus the Minister used his power retrospectively, contrary to relevant articles
in the domestic law on normative legal acts and the law on the Lawyers, The author
challenged this Ministerial refusal before the District Court but his claim was rejected. The
author appealed to the High Court and the Supreme Court. All the appeals were rejected.
The author commented that both the unlawful refusal of his license and the court
proceedings reflected the lack of independence of judicial bodies in Myland. The author also
argued that because of his opposition to the incumbent regime, his pension as a former
chairman of the Supreme Council of Myland was never updated, as was the case of other
opponents to the regime, whereas those close to the regime saw their pensions increased.
The author also contended without providing details that he and his wife were unlawfully
denied the entitlement to a special medical care. He is also de facto deprived of employment
opportunities. Therefore, the author claimed that the following articles of the covenant were
violated: Art. 14, since his case was examined neither by a competent nor by an independent
court; Art. 2 and Art. 26 since he did not benefit of the equal protection of law and was
persecuted to his political opinions. The state party contested the author's claims, arguing
both the denial to obtain a lawyer's license and rejection of his claims/appeals by the State
courts were grounded on relevant domestic laws and were thus correct and lawful.
How would you decide about the communication, if you were a member of the Human Rights
Committee?
As a member of the Human Rights Committee, I would carefully review the information
provided in the communication and consider the arguments presented by both the author and
the state party. I would also consider any relevant international human rights law and the state
party's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Based on the information provided, it appears that the author's lawyering license was cancelled
and he was later denied a lawyer's license by the Minister, allegedly due to the author's criticism
of the regime and his participation in an unauthorized street rally. The author claims that the
Minister's decision was retrospective and contrary to relevant domestic laws. He also claims
that the subsequent court proceedings reflected the lack of independence of judicial bodies in
Myland.
If it is found that the author's claims are accurate, and that the Minister's decision and the
subsequent court proceedings were not in compliance with domestic laws, then it could be
concluded that the author's rights under Article 14 of the ICCPR (the right to a fair trial) and
Article 2 and 26 (the right to equal protection of the law and non-discrimination) have been
violated. The state party's argument that the decision and the court proceedings were grounded
on relevant domestic laws would be taken into account, but it would also be necessary to
examine whether those laws comply with the ICCPR.
In making a decision, I would also consider the author's claims regarding his pension and access
to medical care, and whether these have been denied or restricted due to his opposition to the
regime, as this would be a violation of the right to equal protection of the law and non-
discrimination under Article 2 and 26 of the ICCPR.
Overall, I would carefully review all the information and arguments presented and make a
decision based on the evidence and in accordance with the state party's obligations under the
ICCPR.

Q18. Singh Binder, a French citizen originally from India brought a communication before
the Human Rights Committee claiming to be the victim of a violation by France of Arts 2 12
18 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The optional Protocol
entered into force for the State party on 17 May 1984. The author immigrated to France in
1970 and was nationalized in 1989 when he became a French citizen and immediately
obtained a French passport. For this first passport the Passport Authority allowed him to
wear his turban on the identity photographs. In the following 15 years the author obtained
three more passports, issued successively in 1989, 1991 and 1995, and an extension for the
1995 passport. issued in 2000. Each passport included a photograph showing the author with
his turban. On 8 December 2005, the author attempted to renew his passport for the fourth
time and submitted a photograph showing him wearing his turban. However, the passport
Authority rejected his application stating that the photograph was not in conformity with the
provisions of the Decree No. 2001-185 of 2001 on the conditions for the issuance and
renewal of passports. Article 5 of the decree provides that identity photographs must be
"face-on. bareheaded, recent and with an acute likeness".
On 16 February 2006 the author challenged the Passport Authority's refusal before the local
administrative Court, which rejected his application on 29 June 2006. The author then
appealed the decision before the Administration Court of Appeal, which rejected the
application in a ruling handed down on 24 January 2008. The ruling of the Administrative
Court of Appeal mentions that the freedoms guaranteed by the ICCPR may be subject to
limitations, in particular In the interest of public safety and the protection of public order.
The ruling also notes that the decision of the Passport Authority "involved no
discrimination, nor did it disregard the provisions of the ICCPR".
The author maintains that wearing a turban is an integral part of a Sikh's faith and identity.
The first commandment of the Sikh faith is that the hair must never be cut and must be kept
clean, groomed and hidden from public view. Removal of the turban may be considered a
renunciation of the faith. To oblige Sikhs to remove their turban is as humiliating as obliging
people to remove their trousers in public.
What would you decide about the communication if you were a member of the Human Rights
Committee?
As a member of the Human Rights Committee, I would likely consider the communication
brought by Singh Binder and weigh the competing interests at play. On one hand, the State
party has an interest in ensuring public safety and protecting public order, which may justify
certain limitations on the freedoms guaranteed by the ICCPR. On the other hand, the author
argues that wearing a turban is an integral part of his Sikh faith and identity, and that removing
it would be deeply humiliating and potentially a renunciation of his faith.
I would carefully consider the specific provisions of the Decree No. 2001-185 of 2001 cited by
the Passport Authority and the local and appellate court decisions, as well as the specific facts
of the case, such as the fact that the author had previously been allowed to wear his turban in
his passport photographs for 15 years.
I would also take into account the principle of non-discrimination, as the author argues that the
Passport Authority's decision to reject his application constitutes discrimination on the basis of
his religion.
In making my decision, I would likely consider the specific facts of the case, the competing
interests at play, and the principle of non-discrimination, and make a determination as to
whether or not there has been a violation of Arts 2, 12, 18 and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.

Q19. Mr. Zameer, a 42-year-old Bangladeshi citizen is serving a prison sentence at a

Bnglastan jail. In May 2013, he files a communication to the Human Rights Committee
claiming to be a victim of breaches by Banglastan government of article 15 (1), as well as
articles 9 (1), (4) and (5) and 11 of the International Covenant ca Civil and Political Rights.
He states that on 22 November 2003 he was sentenced to 16 years and 3 months
imprisonment for various offences committed between 30 January and 3 July 2002. The
expiry date of the full sentence is 3 February 2020, but he had been informed in writing that
he has earned remission and been credited with statutory remission equal to one third of the
sentence and that the date of his release has been set for 8 September 2014. He claims that
certain provisions of the Parole Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2002 (after the
dates of commission of each of his offences). introduced the element of "mandatory
supervision" for convicted persons released before the expiration of their term of
imprisonment. The release of the petitioner/author on 8 September 2004 is contingent on his
signing the "mandatory supervision certificate" stated in Parole Act, a requirement which,
he claims, did not exist at the time of commission of the offences in question. He contends
that "mandatory supervision" is therefore tantamount to a penalty heavier than the one that
was applicable at the time when the criminal offences were committed and that this "heavier
penalty" constitutes in his case a violation of article 15 (1) of the Covenant. Mr. Zameer
further maintains that "mandatory supervision" constitutes a re-imposition of punishment
which should be regarded as remitted and that the demand that he signs the mandatory
supervision certificate (an act, he claims, which would constitute a contract with penalties
for failure of fulfilment), or else face the punishment of serving the entire sentence until 3
February 2020, constitutes a criminal action of intimidation in violation of section 111 of
the Banglastan s Criminal Code and of article 11 of the Covenant. Mr. Zameer finally asserts
that he is denied the right to challenge before a court the basic legal assumption that the
term of imprisonment, in spite of earned remission of the sentence, continues in force after
the date of release to the date of expiration, in violation of article 9 (1), (4) and (5) of the
Covenant, important to note, Banglastan has ratified both ICCPR and its First Optional
Protocol. Examine the admissibility of the communication referring to pertinent arguments.
Mr. Zameer's communication to the Human Rights Committee raises several claims of
breaches by the Banglastan government of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). Specifically, he claims that the introduction of "mandatory supervision" for
convicted persons released before the expiration of their term of imprisonment under the Parole
Act constitutes a violation of article 15 (1) of the ICCPR, as it is a penalty heavier than the one
that was applicable at the time when the criminal offences were committed. He also claims that
the demand that he sign the mandatory supervision certificate constitutes a criminal action of
intimidation in violation of section 111 of the Banglastan s Criminal Code and of article 11 of
the Covenant. Lastly, he asserts that he is denied the right to challenge before a court the basic
legal assumption that the term of imprisonment continues in force after the date of release to
the date of expiration, in violation of article 9 (1), (4) and (5) of the Covenant.
In order for the communication to be admissible, several criteria must be met. Firstly, the
communication must be inadmissible under any other article of the Covenant or of the Optional
Protocol. Secondly, it must not be anonymous. Thirdly, it must not be incompatible with the
provisions of the Covenant or the Optional Protocol, nor be manifestly ill-founded or vexatious.
Given that Banglastan has ratified both ICCPR and its First Optional Protocol, Mr. Zameer's
communication would be considered admissible if it meets the aforementioned criteria. It
would then be up to the Human Rights Committee to examine the merits of his claims and
determine whether there have been breaches of the ICCPR by the Banglastan government.

Q20. A group of homeless people erected overhead shelter in the form of tents, tarps and
cardboard boxes at a local park in a city. The City Authority sought a permanent injunction
requiring the homeless to refrain from erecting shelters and declaration that such structures
contravened the provisions of Park Regulation and Streets and Traffic by-laws. The City has
a documented shortfall of spaces and other resources in providing shelters to the homeless.
The defendants argued that by-laws were unconstitutional infringing "the right to life,
liberty and security of the person" under section 7 of Country's Constitution. If you were a
judge in this case, what remedy would you give and why?
As a judge in this case, I would first consider the competing interests at play. On one hand, the
City Authority has a duty to enforce by-laws and regulations regarding the use of public spaces,
including parks. On the other hand, the defendants, who are homeless individuals, have a right
to life, liberty and security of the person, which includes the right to shelter.
Given the documented shortfall of spaces and resources for the provision of shelters to the
homeless, I would be inclined to find that the City's by-laws and regulations infringe upon the
defendants' rights under section 7 of the Constitution.
In light of this, I would not grant the City Authority's request for a permanent injunction.
Instead, I would order the City to take immediate steps to provide sufficient resources and
spaces for the provision of shelters to the homeless. This could include working with non-profit
organizations, private entities, and other levels of government to increase the availability of
shelters and other forms of housing for the homeless.
Furthermore, I would also order the City to engage in meaningful consultation with the
homeless population and other stakeholders to develop and implement a comprehensive plan
to address homelessness in the city. This plan should include measures to provide housing,
support services, and other assistance to the homeless in order to ensure that their rights to life,
liberty and security of the person are respected and protected.
Overall, my goal as a judge in this case would be to find a solution that balances the City's duty
to enforce by-laws and regulations with the defendants' rights to life, liberty and security of the
person. This would involve taking steps to ensure that the homeless have access to adequate
shelter and support services and that the City is taking meaningful steps to address
homelessness in the city.