Follow-up: State Reporting

ICELAND

Follow-up - State Reporting

          Action by Treaty Bodies, including reports on missions

CCPR, A/60/40 vol. I (2005)

CHAPTER VII. FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

...

233. For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party’s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the comprehensive table presented below. Since 18 June 2004, 15 States parties (Egypt, Germany, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Sweden, Togo and Venezuela) have submitted information to the Committee under the follow-up procedure. Since the follow-up procedure was instituted in March 2001, only six States parties (Colombia, Israel, Mali, Republic of Moldova, Sri Lanka and Suriname) have failed to supply follow-up information that had fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

224. The table below details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow-up responses provided to it, decided to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

Follow-up - Reporting

          ii) Action by State Party

CCPR CCPR/CO/83/ISL/Add.1 (2005)

Comments by the Government of Iceland on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee

1.         Reference is made to earlier correspondence regarding the advance unedited version of the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the fourth periodic report of Iceland (CCPR/C/CO/83/ISL), paragraph 14 of which states:

"The Committee has noted with concern the delegation's information that, in the case of minor offences (misdemeanours), the convicted person cannot appeal against the conviction and sentence to a higher tribunal, except in exceptional circumstances where the Supreme Court may so authorize (article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant)."

2.         According to article 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 19/1991, cases where the defendant is sentenced to deprivation of liberty or to confiscation of property can always be appealed to the Supreme Court. Criminal offences that are sanctioned by a fine under a certain amount (currently about ISK 420,000) are, however, not subject to appeal to the Supreme Court unless the Court permits. Thus, lower court judgements in minor cases can be subject to appeal following a decision by the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal. Such leave to appeal, depending on the circumstances, will be granted if a different conclusion is not deemed unlikely or if important interests are involved. In practice, three Supreme Court judges decide, on the basis of all relevant documents and information, whether to grant an appeal or not.

3.         According to statistics from the Supreme Court, 18 requests for appeal of cases where the fines imposed were within the specified limits were made to the Court in 2004. Five leaves to appeal were subsequently granted. Icelandic authorities are of the opinion that the wording in paragraph 14 ("the person convicted cannot appeal against the conviction and sentence to a higher tribunal, except in exceptional circumstances where the Supreme Court may so authorize") (emphasis added) does not correctly reflect the situation described above. The words "exceptional circumstances" imply that leaves to appeal are granted very infrequently. In light of the fact that requests for appeal were granted in 5 out of 18 cases last year, Icelandic authorities find this wording misleading. Accordingly, it is proposed that the words "exceptional circumstances" be replaced by the words "certain circumstances", as the latter will more precisely portray the current situation in Iceland.

4.         The Permanent Mission of Iceland kindly requests that these minor amendments, as proposed, be reflected in the final version of the Committee's concluding observations. For further information, the Permanent Mission of Iceland remains at the disposal of the Committee.

Home | About Bayefsky.com | Text of the Treaties | Amendments to the Treaties

Documents by State | Documents by Category | Documents by Theme or Subject Matter

How to Complain About Human Rights Treaty Violations | Working Methods of the Treaty Bodies | Report: Universality at the Crossroads

Senda grein