Human Rights Committee

v. Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, Views of 3 April 1997

v. New Zealand, Communication No. 754/1997, Views of 3 August 1999

Ackla v. Togo, Communication No. 505/1992, Views of 25 March 1996

Adam et al. v. The Czech Republic, Communication No. 586/1994, Views of 23 July 1996

Adimayo M. Aduayom T. Diasso and Yawo S. Dobou V. Togo, Communication No. 424/1990, Views of 12 July 1996

Ahani v. Canada, Communication No. 1051/2002, Views of 29 March 2004

Almeida de Quinteros and Quinteros Almeida v. Uruguay, Communication 107/1981, Views of 21 July 1983

Almirati Nieto v. Uruguay, Communication No. 92/1981, Views of 25 July 1983

Althammer et al. v. Austria, Communication No. 998/2001, Views of 8 August 2003

Alzery v Sweden, Communication No. 1416/2005, Views of 25 October 2006

Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand, Communication No. 547/1993, Views of 27 October 2000

Ato del Avellanal v. Peru, Communication No. 202/1986, Views of 28 October 1988

Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women v. Mauritiu, Communication No. 035/1978, Views of 9 April 1981

Aurel Blaga v. Romania, Communication No. 1158/2003, Views of 30 March 2006

Aärelä and Näkkäläjärui v. Finland, Communication No. 779/1997, Views of 24 October 2001

Balaguer Santacana v. Spain, Communication No. 417/1990, Views of 15 July 1994

Ballantyne et al. v. Canada, Communication Nos. 359/1989, 385/1989, Views of 31 March 1993

Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Communication No. 563/1993, Views of 27 October 1995

Bhinder v. Canada, Communication No. 208/1986, Views of 9 November 1989

Blazek et al. v. The Czech Republic, Communication No. 857/1999, Views of 12 July 2001

Bleier v. Uruguay, Communication No. 030/1978, Views of 29 March 1982

Blom v. Sweden, Communication No. 191/1985, Views of 4 April 1988

Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 721/1996, Views of 2 April 2002

Bordes and Temeharo v. France, Communication No. 645/1995, Decision on Admissibility of 22 July 1996

Brinkhof v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 402/1990, Views of 27 July 1993

Broeks v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 001/1984, Views of 9 April 1987

Brough v Australia, Communication No. 1184/2003, Views of 27 March 1981

Buffo Carballal v. Uruguay, Communication No. 33/1978, Views of 27 March 1981

Burrell v. Jamaica, Communication No. 546/1993, Views of 18 July 1996

Bwalya v. Zambia, Communication No. 314/1988, Views of 14 July 1993

C. v. Australia, Communication No. 900/1999, Views of 28 October 2002

Campbell (John) v. Jamaica, Communication No. 307/1988, Views of 24 March 1993

Canepa v. Canada, Communication No. 558/1993, Views of 3 April 1997

Casafranca de Gomez v. Peru, Communication No. 981/2001, Views of 22 July 2003

Cavalcanti Araujo-Jongen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 418/1990, Views of 22 October 1993

Celepli v. Sweden, Communication No. 456/1991, Views of 18 July 1994

Celis Laureano v. Peru, Communication No 540/1993, Views of 25 March 1996

Chan v. Guyana, Communication No. 913/2000, Views of 31 October 2005

Coeriel and Aurik v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 453/1991, Views of 31 October 1994

Collins v. Jamaica, Communication No. 356/1989, Views of 25 March 1993

Correia de Matos v. Portugal, Communication No. 1123/2002, Views of 28 March 2006

Cox v. Canada, Communication No. 539/1993, Views of 31 October 1994

Delgado Páez v. Colombia, Communication No. 195/1985, Views of 12 July 1990

Derksen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 976/2001, Views of 1 April 2004

Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Communication No. 84/1981, Views of 21 October 1982

Des Fours Walderode and Kammerlander v. The Czech Republic, Communication No. 147/1997, Views of 30 October 2001

Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, Communication No 760/1997, Views of 25 July 2000

Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay, Communication No. 43/1979, Views of 21 July 1983

Dudko v. Australia, Communication No. 1347/2005, Views of 23 July 2007

Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, Communication No. 161/2000, Views of 21 November 2002

E. And A.K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, Views of 07 April 1994

E. H. P. et al. v. Canada, Communication No. 67/1980, decision on admissibility of 27 October 1982

Elmi v. Australia, Communication No. 120/1998, Views of 14 May 1999

Estrella v. Uruguay, Communication No. 074/1980, Views of 29 March 1983

Fals Borda et al. v. Colombia, Communication No. 046/1979, Views of 27 July 1982

Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993, Views of 8 November 1996

Fábryová v. Czech Republic, Communication No.765/1997, view of 30 October 2001

Fei v. Colombia, Communication No. 514/1992, Views 4 April 1995

Francis (Clement) v. Jamaica, Communication No. 606/1994, Views of 25 July 1995

Francis (Victor) v. Jamaica, Communication No. 320/1988, Views of 24 March 1993

G.T. v. Australia, Communication No. 706/1996, Views of 4 November 1997

Garcia Pons v. Spain, Communication No. 454/1991, Views of 30 October 1995

Gauthier v. Canada, Communication No. 633/1995, Views of 7 April 1999

Gillot et al. v. France, Communication No. 932/2000, Views of 15 July 2002

Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Communication No. 1134/2002, Views of 17 March 2005

Gueye et al. v. France, Communication No. 196/1983, Views of 3 April 1989

Guido Jacobs v. Belgium, Communication No. 943/2000, Views of 7 July 2004

Hamilton v. Jamaica, Communication No. 333/1988, Views of 7 July 1994

Hendricks v. Guyana, Communication No. 838/1998, Views of 28 October 2002

Hendriks v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 201/1985, Views of 27 July 1988

Herrera Rubio et al. v. Colombia, Communication No. 161/1983, Views of 2 November 1987

Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, Communication No.61/79, Views of 2 April 1982

Hopu and Bessert v. France, Communication No. 549/1993, Views of 29 July 1997

Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 931/2000, Views of 5 November 2004

J.B. et al. v. Canada, Communication No. 118/1982, Views of 18 July 1986

J.R.T. and the W.G. party v. Canada, Communication No. 104/1981, decision on admissibility of 6 April 1983

Jalloh v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 794/1998, Views of 26 March 2002

Johnson (Clive) v. Jamaica, Communication No. 592/1994, Views of 20 October 1998

Johnson (Errol) v. Jamaica, Communication No. 588/1994, Views of 22 March 1996

Joslin et al. v. New Zealand, Communication No. 902/1999, Views adopted 17 July 2002

Judge v. Canada, Communication No. 829/1998, Views of 5 August 2003

Kalenga v. Zambia, Communication No 326/1988, Views of 27 July 1993

Karakurt v. Austria, Communication No. 965/2000, Views of 4 April 2002

Kavanagh v. Ireland, Communication No. 819/1998, Views of 4 April 2001

Kelly v. Jamaica, Communication No. 253/1987, Views of 8 April 1991

Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845/1998, Views 26 March 2002

Khan v. Canada, Communication No. 15/1994, Views of 15 November 1994

Kim v. Republic of Korea, Communication No. 574/1994, Views of 3 November 1998

Kindler v. Canada, Communication No. 470/1990, Views of 30 July 1993

Kisoki v. Sweden, Communication No. 41/1996, Views of 8 May 1996

KL v. Peru, Communication No. 1153/2003, Views of 22 November 2005

Lansman (Ilmari) et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 511/1992, 26 October 1994

Lansman (Jouni E.) et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 671/1995, Views of 30 October 1996

Lantsova v. The Russian Federation, Communication No. 763/1997, Views of 26 March 2002

Laptsevich v. Belarus, Communication No. 780/1997, Views of 20 March 2000

Larranaga v. The Philippines, Communication No. 1421/2005, Views of 24 July 2006

LaVende v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 554/1993, Views of 29 October 1997

Leirvag v. Norway, Communication No. 1155/2003, Views of 3 November 2004

 

Icelandic Human Rights Centre

Túngata 14 | 101 Reykjavík | Sími 552 2720 | info[at]humanrights.is

The office is open from 9-12 and 13-16