Following its first run in 2023, our researchers invite you to take part in selecting the best UNTB decision of 2024.
Researchers of the “Deep Impact through Soft Jurisprudence? The Contribution of United Nations Treaty Body Case Law to the Development of International Human Rights Law” project at the Hertie School Centre for Fundamental Rights ran their first poll of ‘Best United Nations Treaty Body Decisions’ in 2023. Participants in our poll selected Krikkerik v Russia (HRC) as the best United Nations Treaty Body case in 2023.
As we approach the end of 2024, we shortlisted twelve decisions from six United Nations Treaty Bodies, which were either adopted or published in 2024. Whilst all of these decisions make significant contributions to the development of international human rights law, it is now your decision to vote for the best decision of 2024!
Join our poll to choose the Best UNTB Decision of 2024. Our poll will be closed on 10 January and the result will be announced on our webpage.
Human Rights Committee (HRC):
- Bratsylo et al v Russia concerned the automatic conferral of Russian citizenship to Ukrainian nationals in Crimea in the wake of Russia’s illegal annexation as well as the subsequent transfer of Ukrainian prisoners from Crimea to Russian territory. The HRC for the first time recognised that forceful imposition of citizenship upon a particular nationality constituted discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as a violation of the right to privacy. The transfer of Ukrainian prisoners to Russian territory was also found to be discriminatory due to its disproportionate impact on the applicants as a protected person under international humanitarian law.
- M.L.D. v the Philippines relates to the dismissal of the applicant from the Asian Development Bank, an international organisation that enjoys jurisdictional immunity. The HRC found that despite the immunity, the host State still exercises jurisdiction if the international organisation concerned lacks a reasonable alternative means of dispute resolution. Moreover, the Committee held that the host State has the obligation to intervene if the international organisation’s internal dispute mechanism suffers from specific flaws, such as arbitrariness and the denial of access to justice or a fair trial.
- Sara v Norway concerns a Sámi reindeer herder who was ordered to reduce his reindeer herd in accordance with the regulations aiming at the protection of grazing resources and sustainability of reindeer herding. He claimed that the cull order particularly affected young herders like him who were in the establishment phase, and it denied him the right to enjoy his own culture as protected under Article 27 of the ICCPR. The HRC found a violation because Norway could not justify why it chose not to exempt the herders who owned 200 or fewer animals from the reduction policy.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC):
- In M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v Finland, three children, who are members of a Sámi herding family in Finland, complained that the granting of mineral exploration permit in their traditional reindeer herding territory was not based on an impact assessment or free, prior and informed consent of their community. This decision marked the Committee’s first examination of Article 30 of the Convention (rights of minorities and indigenous children) at the merits stage. It found violations of several provisions pointing out the importance of the cultural identity of Indigenous children for the continuity of Indigenous culture.
- M.L. et al v Georgia concerned systematic physical and psychological abuse of children residing at the Ninotsminda Saint Nino orphanage. At the substantive level, the Committee decided that Georgia failed to protect children who were deprived of their family environment from violence, including children with disabilities. At the procedural level, it found that Georgia failed to adequately investigate the allegations even though 10 years had elapsed since the first complaint was lodged.
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):
- In A.L.P., A.M.E. and F.F.B. v Korea, the applicants were Filipino women who entered Korea with an entertainment visa but were forced into prostitution and subjected to sexual and physical harassment while working at a night club. They were arrested as offenders of sex trafficking and were not provided protection as victims. According to the CEDAW, this approach derived from stereotypical views on the behaviour of victims of trafficking. The Committee held that the lack of identification of the applicants as victims of trafficking was discriminatory based on gender and the applicants were not provided with remedies or given access to justice.
- Carbajal Cepeda et al v Peru concerned the mass forced sterilisation campaign launched by the government of Alberto Fujimori in the 1990s, affecting more than 300,000 women, the vast majority of them of indigenous origin. The Committee found that given its disproportionate impact on Indigenous women, the forced sterilisation campaign constituted gender-based violence as well as intersectional discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, rural origin, and socioeconomic status. In an obiter, the CEDAW also noted that widespread or systematic forced sterilisation constitutes a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD):
- Al-Hawali Alghamdi v Saudi Arabia concerned a prominent religious scholar with permanent impairments in communication and mobility skills as a result of strokes, who was known for his criticism of the Crown Prince. He was arrested and subjected to detention incommunicado. Despite Saudi Arabia’s claim to the contrary, the CRPD considered the applicant as a person with disabilities, since a human rights-based model of disability must take the diversity of persons with disabilities into account. Furthermore, the CRPD found that Saudi Arabia had subjected the applicant to enforced disappearance, which constituted a violation of multiple provisions of the Convention.
- In Ruiz Suárez v Spain, the applicant had an intellectual disability and belonged to a historically marginalised nomadic group called mercheros. He was tried and sentenced for attempted burglary and murder, during which no adjustments were made to ensure he could participate in the proceedings in spite of his intellectual disabilities. The CRPD elaborated the concept of ‘procedural accommodation’ in the context of access to justice, which requires adjustments to ensure the effective participation of persons with disabilities. The CRPD eventually found that the failure of the State Party to provide procedural accommodation in access to justice constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR):
- In El Korrichi v Spain, the CESCR once again had to decide on a right-to-housing case from Spain, involving a mother of Moroccan nationality and her sons who were evicted from social housing that they occupied without a legal title. The Committee issued a comprehensive decision that addressed the issues of vulnerability, the best interests of the child, as well as intersectional discrimination experienced by women in the context of the right to housing. In his concurring opinion, Committee member Ludovic Hennebel also emphasised that this decision was rendered as a ‘reference decision’ similar to a ‘pilot judgment’, which would enable the CESCR to address repetitive cases involving the right to housing from Spain.
- J.T., J.P.V. and P.M.V. v Finland was related to the granting of mineral exploration permits and the reservation of an area in the applicants’ traditional reindeer herding territory. The applicants who were Sámi reindeer herders claimed that these decisions were taken without their free, prior and informed consent and an impact assessment. In its first Views on indigenous rights, the CESCR decided that the processes did not take into account the applicants’ right to land read alone and in conjunction with the right to self-determination, right to an adequate standard of living, and the obligation to ensure their effective participation.
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD):
- U.I. and G.I. v Switzerland marked the CERD’s first assessment of the principle of non-refoulement as an obligation under Article 5(b) of the ICERD in an individual communication. The applicants claimed that their return to North Macedonia would put them at risk of breaches of their right to security and physical safety because of their Roma origin. The CERD did not find a violation on the basis of the lack of evidence showing that the applicants had been subjected to violence in the past.
Teaser picture by Marsha Reid on Unsplash.