Vorderseite | Hopu & Bessert v France |
---|---|
Rückseite | General: - Company owned by France wanted to construct a Hotel on French territory - Natives protest, they claim that their families are buried there - Natives go to the Human Rights Committee to complain Legal Basis: - ICCPR (because it’s the UN human rights committee) First Protocol (ratified by france) -> individuals can go directly to the Human Rights Commission - Art. 27 ICCPR -> minorities culture shouldn’t be denied Problem: France has made a reservation concerning this Art. - Human Rights Commission steers around that using Art. 12 instead Ruling: - they have found bones, using the loose definition of the locals this constitutes as proof that family members of the Polynesians are indeed buried there (this broad definition is used to get around the reservation) - conclusion: family rights were violated Effect: - France withdrew from the first Protocol - Human rights commission was criticized for using too liberal definitions -> credibility suffered |
Learn with these flashcards. Click next, previous, or up to navigate to more flashcards for this subject.
Next card: Permanent court international justice explain predecessor icj exited
Previous card: Human rights committee body experts oversees compliance un-ms
Up to card list: Burri_Public International Law