The author of the communication (lniHal letter dated 5 August 1985) is LilQ MiangQ, a Zairian national re,iding in France. writing on behalf of his broth.r. Jean Miango Huiyo. who died in dubious circumstances on 23 June 1985 at the age of 44 year, at the Hama Yemo Hospital at Kinshasa. Zaire.
The author .tate. that. accQrding to the information that his family has been able to obtain. hi, brother was kidnapped and taken to the military camp at Kokolo, <<In,ha.a. on 20 or 21 June 1985 and that. il1side the camp. he was kept in the residence of Lieutenant Kalonqa. The author believes that his brother was lubjected to torture in the camp by members of the armed forces (force~ a~'e••Diroi.eB (rAZ». since he was seen later. in terrible condition. by a friend of the family at the Mama Yemo Hospital. The friend informed the author'. family and they went twice to the hospital. On the first occasion, they were unablo to fInd his brother lince his name had not been entered in the hospital regi.ter and, on the s6cond occasion, they were taken directly to the morgue to identify his body.
In the re!"ort of the traffic police (Second Detachment). the alleged victim is .ai~ to have entered the hospital on 18 June 1985 as a result of a road traffic accident. which wal not. however. recorded by the police. The author states Lhat, according to neighbours, hi, brother was at home on 18 and 19 June 1985 and that the allegation of a road accident is questionable, because his family knew that he
The author enclosed a copy of a report dated 11 July 1985 by tha forensic physician, Doctor Nausi Ntula, stating that the alleged victim died aw a result oC traumatic wounds probably caused by a blunt instr~nent and that his death seemed to have been the re8ult of the U8e of violence and not a road accident a8 8tated in the report of the traffic policu. 2.~ The author .tate8 that his family in Zaire requested the Office of the Prosecutor to carry out an inquiry regarding the d,ath of Jean Miango Muiyo. In particular, the family requested that Sergeant &adjabo be summoned to the prosecutor's office for questioning. With the consent of his superiors, ,he allegedly refused to be questioned and left for his home province. In this connection, the author state. that ca.e. involving member. of the armed force. in Zaire can only be de~lt with by a military tribu~&l (ayditorat militaire). He alleges that ordinary tribunals are not permitted to try members of the aCl"ed forces unless they have been diBcha~ged from their military functions. A case i8 allegedly dealt with by a military tribunal only when the authorities (pouyoir ,tobli) decide to do so.
The author alleges that his entire family in ~aire has been sul)jected to discrimination and halas8ment because of its relationship with Daniel Monguya Mbenge, the leader of an opposition party, the Mouvement d'actioD pour la resurrection du Congo (MARC). ~I The author m~ntlons that several members of his family have been subjected to arbitrary arL~st, thrftats and other for~8 of harassment. He fears that, in the circumstances, there is no hopA that the case of his brother's death will be properly investigated. He therefore requests the Human Rights Committee to prevail upon the State party to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.
The author claims that article 2, paragraph 3, articles ~, 6, paragraph 1, articles 7, 14 and 16 of the Intet'national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated in the case of Jean Miango Muiyo. He in~icates tbet his brother's case has not been submitted to another proced~re cf interr.ational invesl~gation or settlement.
Having concluded that the author of the communication was Juqt,Fi~d in acting on behalf of the alleged victim, the Working Group of the P.umdn R1g,.ts Committee decided on 15 October 1985 to transmit the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, ror'l~sting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibili~y of the communication.
The deadline for the State party's submission under rule 91 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure expired on 14 January 1936. Nu Lule 91 submission was received from thti State party.
With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (e), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee noted that the author's statement that. his brot 1er'o case was not being examined und., another procedure of international investigation or settlement, was uncontested,
Accordingly, the Committee found that the communicution was not inadmissible under article 5. paragraph 2 (a) or (b), of the Optional Protocol.
On 28 March 1985, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible and in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. requested the State party to submit t~ the Committee. within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of the Com~ittee's decision. written explanations or statements clarifying the matter aD~ the r~medy. if any. that might have been taken by it.
The time-limit for the State party's submission under article 4, paragraph 2. of the Optional Protocol expired on 1 November 1986. No submission has been received from the State party. despite a reminder sent on 19 June 1987.
The Human Rights Committee, having considered the present communication in the light of all the informatiolc made available ~o it, us provided in article 5. para9~ap~ 1. of the Optional Protocol. hereby decides to base its views on the lollowing facts. ~hich have not been contested by the State party.
Mr. Jean Miango Muiyo. a Z~irian citizen. was kidnapped and taken to the military camp at Kokolo. Kinshasa. on 20 or 21 June 1985. There, he was subjected to torture my menbers of the anned forces (forces arrnses zairoises «FAZ». Later. he was seen in a precarious physical condition by a friend of the family at Mama Yemo Hospital in Kinshasa. The author's r~latives were WDcble to locate the victim alive; they were, however, taken to the hospital morgue to identify the victim's body. Contrary to the report of the traffic police, the victim did not succumb to the consequences of a road accident he allegedly suffered on 18 June 1985, but died as the result of traumatic wounds probably caused by a blunt instrument. This conclusion is buttressed by a report from a forensic physician dated 11 July 1985, which states that the victim's death seems to have been the result of the use of violence and not of a road accident. The author's family has requested the Office of the Public Prosecutor to conduct an inquiry int- the death of Mr. Miango Muiyo. in partiCUlar asking that the military officer who delivered the victim to the hospital be summoned for questioning. This officer. however, with the consent of h~s superiors. has refused to be questioned.
In formulating its views, the B'wan Rights Committee also takes into account the failure of the State party to furnish any information and clarifications. It is implicit in article 4. paragraph 2. of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate ingoo~ faith all allegations of violations of ~e Covenant made against it and its authorities, and to furni.lh to the Committee the information available to it. The. COmfilittee notes with concern that. despite its repeated requests and reminders and despite the State party's obligation under article 4. paragraph 2. of the Optional Protocol, no explanations or statements clarifying the matter have been received from the State par~~ in the present case. In the circumstances. due weight must be given to the author's allegations.
The Human Rights Committee. acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is -220-
The Committee therefore urges the State party to t..ske effective steps (a) to investigate the circumstances of the death of Jean Miango Muiyo, (b) to bring to justice .ny person found to be responsible for his death, and (c) to pay compensation to his family.
March 1987 Th, Human Rights CQmmittee. e~tabliahed under article 28 of the International Covenant ~n Civil and PQlitical Rights. Meeting on 27 July 1988. Having cQDcluQad its consideration of communication No. 191/1985. submitted to the Committee by Ivan Xitok under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. AOopts L:'\e followingl ~a under article S, PAragraph 4, Qf tba OptiQoai-ProtQcol
The author of the communication (initial letter dated 2 December 1985 And subsequent letters dated 5 and 12 November 1986) is Ivan Kito~. a Swedist citizen of Sarni ethn '.c orIgin. born in 1926. He is represented by cOlonseI. He claims to be the victim of violations by the Government of Sweden of artic'es I and 27 of the Covenant.
It is stated that Ivan Kit~k belongs to a Sarni family which has been active in reindeer breeding for over 100 years. On th~s basis. the Author claims that he has inherited the "civil right" to reindeer breeding from his forefathers as well as the rights to land "lnd "".ter in Sorkaitum Sarni Village. It appears t.hat the author has been denied the exercise of these rights because he ia said to have lost his membership in the Sarni village (ltaamaby". {ol-merIy "l.appbylt). which under A 1971 Swedish statute is like a trade union w!l:.h a "closed shop" rule. A non-member cannot exercise Sarni rights to land and water.