Human rights belong to all of us, yet there are times when those rights are challenged. Here is a chance to see what you would do in situations where your rights are in jeopardy.
Each scenario is based on a real human rights case that has come up before one of the various committees of the UN Human Rights Office. The selections are based on some of the actual choices available at the time.
There are no prizes, but persistence does pay. The more times you play the better your chance of a small surprise.
You and your spouse manage a national charity supporting humanitarian development projects around the world.
One day the global umbrella organization your charity is allied with is put on a UN Security Council "sanctions list". Your government subsequently opens a criminal investigation in you and your spouse, and shares this information with the Security Council.
Suddenly you are forbidden to leave the country, your finances are frozen and your name and contact information are made public in connection with the sanctions list. Neither you nor your organization have ever been accused of criminal activity.
]]>You and your spouse will remain on the “sanctions list” indefinitely. With such a stain on your reputations, you fear it will be difficult to find any work at all. Even if you were able to find suitable employment, your finances remain frozen and you are unable to travel.
]]>You win your case and the national court mandates that your name be removed from the "sanctions list", but the government refuses to take action.
]]>You are on the right path. The government’s case against you is dismissed, but your name and the name of your charity remain on the list affecting your reputation and livelihood. You decide to take your case to the Human Rights Committee.
What does the Committee find?
Based on the dismissal of the charges against you and the national court's order to remove your name from the sanctions list, the Committee finds that that there has been a violation of article 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, protecting freedom of movement.
The Committee also concludes that there has been an unlawful attack on your honour and reputation, a violation of article 17 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
]]>Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the OHCHR Jurisprudence database.
]]>Desperate to escape extreme violence and persecution, you fled your country by boat and were stopped by authorities as you entered territorial waters off the coast of Country X. Without a valid visa to enter the country, you were taken to a detention centre.
You are seeking asylum in Country X but you have been held in the detention centre for sometime with no update on your situation.
]]>No information is provided to you.
]]>You are told that you are considered a “security threat” and that as such, Country X will not issue you a visa. As far as you can understand, there are no plans to refer your case to another country.
]]>The NGO decides to take up your case and submit a complaint on your behalf to the Human Rights Committee.
What does the Committee find?
The Human Rights Committee finds you were deprived of legal safeguards allowing you to challenge the indefinite detention.
Whatever justification there may have been for the initial detention, the State party did not show grounds for continuous indefinite detention.
The Committee concludes that your detention was arbitrary and contrary to article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
]]>Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the OHCHR Jurisprudence database.
]]>You are an openly gay activist in your community fighting discrimination against LGBT individuals. You are deeply concerned by national law that criminalizes sexual contact between consenting adult homosexual men in private. The law has a profound and harmful impact in your country by fueling discrimination, harassment, and violence against gays and lesbians.
You know that such discriminatory laws have been struck down in other countries and decide to fight for this one. However, repealing the law depends on the support of a majority of members of both Houses of Parliament, which has so far unanimously supported the law.
]]>As a public advocate for LGBTI rights, your private life and liberty are fundamentally threatened by the continued existence of these laws, including the clear possibility of prejudicing employers against you. You cannot live like this.
]]>You are well aware that the relevant national courts have previously denied hearing similar cases. You decide to take your complaint to the Human Rights Committee.
What does the Committee Find?
The Human Rights Committee finds that the law prohibiting intimate relationships between consenting adults is a violation of articles 17 and 26 – Right to Privacy and Equality Before the Law, respectively - of the ICCPR.
The ICCPR also entitles victims of rights violations to a "remedy". The Committee recommends repeal of the discriminatory law and a response from the State regarding actions taken, within 90 days.
]]>Article 17
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
https://youtu.be/NT5aBa-1bXsSee the OHCHR video on the Committee’s groundbreaking findings.
]]>Leaving the country of your birth, your family and your community is not an option. All countries are obligated to protect the human rights of their citizens.
]]>You live in a rural village where local customs are often as influential as the national laws. Your elderly neighbor's husband fell sick and died recently, and according to customary law, her husband’s family will inherit all the property and will take the house, leaving her nowhere to live.
]]>It may be dangerous for your neighbor to challenge customary laws with local leaders and she is elderly and vulnerable.
]]>You secretly help her to file a complaint with the national high court. The court agrees that the customary law provisions are discriminatory but says it can not overturn them as doing so would “be opening a Pandora’s box, with all the seemingly discriminatory customs following the same path”.
]]>You help your neighbor to contact the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), who monitor and oversee the UN treaty on discrimination against women, through the procedure for individual complaints.
What does the Committee find?
The Committee notes that countries have an obligation to adopt measures to amend or abolish “not only existing laws and regulations, but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women."
1. The Committee calls on Country X to: Provide a place to live and financial compensation to your neighbour, noting that she had been left “economically vulnerable with no home to live in”.
The positive outcome of your case potentially affects millions of other women in your country and in the region, who experience similar violations as a result of discriminatory customary laws.
]]>States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the CEDAW and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
]]>You have been living in Country X legally for 16 years as a foreign national, and have three children – one was born in the country and all of whom are citizens. Upon applying for permanent residency status your application is refused. You are told you must leave the country due to what authorities term “compelling reasons of national security.” Your wife and children are entitled to remain in the country but you must leave.
]]>You are on the right path. After a difficult discussion, you and your wife decide to return to your country of origin along with your youngest child. Your two adult children choose to stay.
After returning you realize your rights have been violated and you decide to challenge the ruling that has separated your family. You file a complaint with the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
What did the Human Rights Committee Find?
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) determines that Country X’s ruling forcing your family to choose between remaining together or staying in the country, violates the right to state protection of the family.
The Committee also determines that Country X has not provided an adequate and objective justification for disrupting your long-settled family life as your were never given a chance to dispute charges against you. The Committee specifically notes that the notion of arbitrariness includes a lack of predictability and due process of law.
]]>Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
]]>Your lawyer is provided background information on the “evidence” against you but you are not allowed to see any of the details and so are unable to refute the alleged threat to national security.
]]>You go into hiding but cannot work or live a normal life.
]]>You have been teaching English at a university in Country X for the past year. Upon returning from summer break you are told that as a foreign English teacher, you must undergo mandatory HIV/AIDS and drug tests as a condition of contract renewal. Other foreigners on staff and national staff who are from the majority national ethnic group are not required to undergo the same testing.
Recently, there has been a stream of negative media and statements by public officials in the country portraying English teachers as morally deviant and prone to indecent or criminal behavior. You consider the testing to be openly discriminatory based on race and an affront to your dignity as a person.
]]>You note your positive work record and argue the mandatory HIV/AIDS testing policy is discriminatory and stigmatizes English speakers from outside the predominant ethnic group in the country. The Ministry responds that you are free to refuse the medical tests but that your employer (the State) will not in that case, renew your contract.
]]>After several months, both bodies dismiss your case. You decide to pursue your case with the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
What does the Committee find?
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) notes that country X does not provide any reasons to justify the mandatory testing, which exempts members of the predominant ethnic group.
The testing policy “does not appear to be justified on public health grounds or any other ground, and is a breach of the right to work without distinction to race, colour, national or ethnic origin.” The Committee also notes that, during arbitration proceedings, your employer has said that HIV/AIDS tests were viewed as a means to check the “values and morality of foreign English teachers”.
In response to this case, Country X has since removed the testing requirement, potentially benefitting a wide range of foreign nationals living and working in the country.
]]>Article 5
In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law…
Article 6
States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the Human Rights Treaty Bodies database.
]]>You are subsequently informed that you will not be given a new contract, in spite of positive work evaluations. Time to go home.
]]>You are one of Jehovah's Witnesses and a university professor in Country X. According to national law, you are required to report for compulsory military service. You have just received an official notice to present yourself for basic training. Based on your religious beliefs, you cannot in good conscience perform military service.
]]>The Recruitment Office notifies you that you will not be exempted from military service and orders you to report immediately or risk being prosecuted and imprisoned if you do not present yourself for service.
]]>Your complaint against the government is dismissed and you are put in jail.
]]>The university where you work is threatened with criminal prosecution for employing you while you should be doing your compulsory military service. They dismiss you and now you have no source of income. You take your case to the Human Rights Committee based on the fact national law violates your freedom of conscience.
What does the Committee find?
The Committee finds that your refusal to be drafted for compulsory military service derives from genuine religious beliefs, which have not been contested and that prosecution and sentencing to imprisonment amount to an infringement of your freedom of conscience, in breach of article 18, of the ICCPR.
As a State party to the Covenant, Country X is under an obligation to clear your criminal record and compensate you for lost income.
]]>According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is non-derogable – may not be compromised – in any circumstances.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
]]>Your people have raised alpaca and llama in the rural community where you live for thousands of years. The practice of grazing and raising animals is part of your culture and your only means of subsistence.
Since the 1950s, local and national government have undertaken a series of water diversion and well drilling projects around your community that have reduced the water table to the point that your community's livelihood is threatened. In the past year, nearly half of your animals have died due to the man-made drought.
]]>Minority peoples’ right to practice their own culture is an issue not only for your village and your country, but the whole world.
You decide to take your case to the Human Rights Committee based on the impact that the government's water management decisions have had on your community's ability to enjoy and practice your culture.
What does the Human Rights Committee Find?
The Human Rights Committee finds that the State did not adequately study the impact that the water projects would have on traditional economic activity, or take measures to minimize the negative consequences and repair the harm done. The Committee notes that while governments may legitimately take steps to promote their economic development, they may not undermine the rights protected by article 27 of the ICCPR. The government's action has substantively compromised the traditional way of life and culture of your village constituting a violation of the right to enjoy one's own culture.
Under the Covenant, your government is required to provide you an effective remedy and reparations that are commensurate with the harm sustained. The country is also obligated to take necessary measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in future.
]]>Article 27
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the OHCHR Jurisprudence database.
]]>No action is taken by the government in response to your community’s complaints and the situation continues to worsen. The regular public protests held by community members have been broken up by police and armed forces.
]]>If you leave your village, you will be leaving behind not only your cultural heritage but also your only means of earning a living. There are countless unemployed people like you in the city and no guarantee of work.
]]>You are a student at the public State Institute for Languages and a practicing Muslim who wears traditional dress. Recently, the Institute has begun pressuring Muslim students. They’ve closed a prayer room, and "invited" students wearing headscarves to transfer to a school for Islamic studies.
]]>Even though you are vehemently against this, you want to stay in school. But even after you have stopped wearing the headscarf, you continue to be pressured by authorities and discriminated against.
]]>The Institute enacts new regulations forbidding students from wearing religious dress. Shortly after, you are told that you are barred from studying at the Institute but that the order will be annulled if you agree not to wear a headscarf. You seek help from the Ministry of Education and eventually the Supreme Court, which finds no reasons to challenge your expulsion.
]]>In doing some research, you learn that there can be legitimate limits to certain human rights and freedoms, but in your case there is seemingly no valid reason for the pressure you and your fellow Muslim students have been experiencing. You file a complaint with the Human Rights Committee.
What does the Committee Find?
The Committee notes that the freedom to manifest one’s religion encompasses the right to wear clothes or attire in public, which is in conformity with an individual’s faith or religion. This freedom is not absolute however, and may be subject to limitations, which are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. However, the country has not demonstrated that your freedom was restricted for any of those reasons. The Committee therefore finds that the country has violated your right to freedom of religious expression.
As a signatory to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the country is under obligation to provide you with an effective remedy and to take measures to prevent similar rights violations in the future.
]]>Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice…
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the OHCHR Jurisprudence database.
]]>You are a homeowner with a mortgage from a bank. Due to financial difficulties you fall behind on your home payments. One day you return home to discover a notice on your door announcing that your house is being auctioned off by the bank. According to the bank, you have been duly notified as required by law, even though you were never contacted personally.
]]>You have no immediate family and nowhere to live if the bank takes your home. This is not a viable option.
]]>When you contact the bank you are told the window for legal action has closed. There is no recourse under national law.
]]>You speak with a lawyer who confirms that the action is permitted under national law but who also believes your human rights have been violated under the International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights. You decide to take your complaint to the Committee on Economic Cultural and Social Rights.
What does the Committee Find?
The Committee finds that the national government violated article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights because the courts failed to take all reasonable measures to adequately inform you of the pending foreclosure. The Committee finds that you have been deprived of the possibility to adequately defend your right to housing.
]]>Article 11
The States Parties to the ICESCR 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.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICESCR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
]]>You live in a wealthy country, in a major urban area whose residents, including you, overwhelmingly belong to a minority racial group. The local water utility has raised rates to cover the costs of leakages due to an aging infrastructure. As a result, 27,000 homes have had their water services disconnected for non-payment.
The spike in prices coincides with a growing unemployment crisis in the city. You have recently lost your job and just received a disconnection notice from the water utility for late payment. Your monthly unemployment benefits are barely enough to feed your family.
]]>When you speak with the company you are shown a record of several months of late payment, even though you have paid on time until losing your job two months ago. You have no recourse to challenge the billing records.
]]>You learn that your water bill is being attached to your property tax billing. If you do not resolve this situation you risk losing your home in addition to the immediate threat of no access to water in your house.
]]>In talking to each other you and your neighbors realize you are not alone. You decide to invite the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on adequate housing and the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, to visit your city.
What do the Special Rapporteurs find?
Your city has violated several international human rights conventions including the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Your country is bound by international human rights law and principles, including the right to non-discrimination with respect to housing, water and sanitation and the highest attainable standard of health. These obligations apply to all levels of Government – federal, state and municipal.
The Special Rapporteurs recommend that: your city restores water connections to residents unable to pay and vulnerable groups, stops further disconnections of water when residents are unable to pay, and provides the opportunity to seek public assistance. They also find that city residents should be ensured access to administrative and legal remedies where services have been shut off.
This scenario and responses are based on a real-life case. Learn more about what happened here.
]]>Article 11
1. 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 States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Special Rapporteur report findings.
What are the Special Rapporteurs?
The Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to monitor and promote the rights to adequate housing and to water and sanitation worldwide. The Rapporteurs are not United Nations staff, do not represent any government or institution, and receive no remuneration for their work. For more information: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx
]]>Your partner of 38 years dies after a long illness. As a war veteran, he was entitled to state benefits and upon his death you apply for them as a veteran's dependent. However, same sex partners are not considered dependents under the relevant Veteran's Act, and your application is denied. You meet every criteria under the law to be considered as a dependent for benefit purposes, except that the law clearly discriminates, defining a couple as two people of the opposite sex living together.
]]>According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), all human beings have the right to equal treatment before the law. You discover that your country has ratified this Covenant, and its Optional Protocol, which means that you can take your case to the Human Rights Committee.
What does the Human Rights Committee Find?
Not every distinction amounts to prohibited discrimination under the ICCPR, as long as it is based on reasonable and objective criteria. However in your case, the state has provided no explanation of how the distinction between same-sex partners, who are excluded from pension benefits under law, and unmarried heterosexual partners, who are granted such benefits, is reasonable and objective. The state has violated article 26 of the Covenant by denying your right to partner benefits, based on your sexual orientation.
As the victim of a human rights violation under article 26 you are entitled to reconsideration of your pension application without discrimination based on your sex or sexual orientation, if necessary through an amendment of the law.
And
The State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations of the Covenant do not occur in the future.
]]>Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the Human Rights Treaty Bodies database.
]]>The initial decision is reaffirmed, finding that you are not a dependent as defined by the law. Similar appeals to the national human rights and equal opportunity body are unsuccessful.
]]>You are a private person and do not like the thought of your personal life being paraded in the news and therefore do not wish to pursue the case further. However, the money is necessary to help you continue living as you had before with your partner.
]]>You live in a country that has suffered recent armed conflict, including between government forces and rebel groups. The region where you live is known to be under the control of government allied paramilitary forces. One week ago your husband left the house by car for a two-day business trip to a neighbouring region. He never returned home.
]]>The police report that there are "not sufficient grounds to initiate a criminal investigation," however a sympathetic officer tells you that many visitors to the region have been "disappeared" recently by paramilitary groups. When you pursue the case you are warned that you will suffer the same if you continue, and you return home.
]]>Investigation by the NGO points increasingly to paramilitary involvement in your husband's disappearance. Numerous inquiries are made including to the Office of the President of the Republic, however the case is never investigated by relevant authorities.
]]>You explain to the Association that you’ve been searching for news of your husband for several years now. They agree to help you submit a complaint to the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
What does the Working Group find?
By this time 21 years have passed since your husband's disappearance. Yet no progress has been made in investigating his fate despite numerous reports that he was the victim of an enforced disappearance by identified paramilitary groups. The Committee therefore considers that your country has violated articles 6 and 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the right to life, and the right to liberty and security of person.
The severe and longstanding suffering of you and your family due to your husband's disappearance is ruled to be a violation of article 7, that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
As a party to the ICCPR, your country is obligated to carry out an independent, thorough and effective investigation of the disappearance of your husband and prosecute and punish those responsible. It is also obligated to provide reparation, including compensation, medical and psychological rehabilitation for your family.
Your government is also under obligation to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future and to ensure that in the case of any forced disappearances, a prompt, impartial and effective investigation will be undertaken.
]]>Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 7
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Does the Covenant protect me too?
Find out if your country has ratified the CEDAW and its Optional Protocol.
Where can I find the details of the real-life case?
Read the detailed Committee findings in the OHCHR Treaty Body database.
]]>