Mr. J.O., Mrs Z.S, and their daughter S. O. v. Belgium

October – 3 November 2005

The authors of the communication are Mr. J.O., a Belgian national born in 1951 and his companion, Mrs. S.Z., a Belgian resident born in 1970. They submit the communication on their behalf and on behalf of their child S., a Belgian national born in 1999, and claim to be victims of violations of their human rights by Belgium, in particular of all of their “judicial rights”, rights under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although the authors do not invoke any specific provision of the Covenant, the communication appears to raise issues under articles 2, paragraph 3 (b); 14; and 26. The authors are not represented by counsel. The Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 21 July 1983 and 17 August 1994, respectively.

The authors explain that they have appealed to several institutions and submit copies of their complaints (Ministry of Justice, First Minister, etc), claiming various unspecified violations of their rights. On 24 February 2004, and in three additional letters of 28 July 2005, they enumerate several alleged procedural violations in the proceedings involving them, and have filed a complaint in the Brussels First Instance Tribunal. They claim violations of their rights and complain about the misconduct of several of the lawyers who represented them, and also about different representatives of the Brussels Bar who allegedly “covered” these lawyers, and about the alleged partiality of the medical expert who investigated the effects on them of the 1999 accident. On 10 May 2005, an examining magistrate of the First Instance Tribunal informed them that their case was with the Federal Police, which would convoke them shortly.

Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

As required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that a similar complaint submitted by the author was declared inadmissible by the European Court for Human Rights on 7 November 2003 (application No. 16793/03), as “manifestly ill-founded”. Article 5, paragraph 2 (a), however, does not preclude the Committee from examining the present communication as the issue is no longer being examined by the European Court and the State party has formulated no reservation under article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee has noted the authors’ claims that, firstly, the State party has violated their human rights, due to the alleged mishandling of their cases in relation to the situation in which they have found themselves following the accidents of 1992 and 1999. It observes that the author’s claims primarily relate to the assessment of elements of facts and evidence in the case. It recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that it was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The material before the Committee does not show that the various proceedings in the State party suffered from such defects. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim, for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Secondly, the Committee notes that the conduct of a privately hired defence lawyer in civil proceedings is not protected as such by any provision of the Covenant. Article 14, paragraph 3 (d) obliges States parties to provide legal aid only within the frame work of criminal proceedings. The Committee therefore concludes that this claim is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

As far as the author’s claim that their proceedings suffered from undue delay, the Committee notes that from the material before it, it cannot be established that this delay can in any way be imputed to the State party. Rather, the delays appear to be the consequence of the authors’ successive actions against the insurance companies, as well as their repeated challenges to the conclusions of experts and complaints about their lawyers. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, this particular claim. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee has further taken note of the authors otherwise unsubstantiated claims that their daughter is not entitled to social benefits, and that they are victims of racial discrimination. The Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, these claims, which accordingly are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol;