CCPR/C/GC/36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
16
A/HRC/31/66, para. 55.
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para. 14.
CCPR/CO/74/SWE, para. 10.
See, in the context of armed conflicts, the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal
obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security
companies during armed conflict (A/63/467-S/2008/636, annex).
CCPR/C/GTM/CO/3, para. 16.
Ibid.; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 15.
A/HRC/26/36, para. 75.
See, e.g., Burdyko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010), para. 8.6.
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 22.
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 6, para. 3; Camargo v. Colombia, para. 13.1.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, judgment of 16
November 2009, para. 236.
CCPR/CO/81/LIE, para. 10.
CCPR/C/MDG/CO/3, para. 17.
CCPR/C/TUR/CO/1, para. 13.
CCPR/C/MOZ/CO/1, para. 12; CCPR/C/GTM/CO/3, para. 18.
CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1, para. 17; CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6 and Corr.1, para. 11.
CCPR/C/ALB/CO/2, para. 10.
A/HRC/24/57, para. 31.
CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6 and Corr.1, para. 14.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay,
judgment of 29 March 2006, para. 155.
Peiris et al. v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/103/D/1862/2009), para. 7.2.
CCPR/C/79/Add.93, para. 17.
CCPR/C/PHL/CO/4, para. 14.
CCPR/C/AGO/CO/1, para. 12; CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para. 10.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, judgment of 4 July 2006, para. 96.
Da Silva Pimentel v. Brazil (CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008), para. 7.5; European Court of Human Rights,
Nitecki v. Poland (application No. 65653/01), admissibility decision of 21 March 2002, and Calvelli
and Ciglio v. Italy (application No. 32967/96), judgment of 17 January 2002, para. 49.
CCPR/C/POL/CO/6, para. 15.
Yassin et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013), para. 6.5; CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 6;
CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, para. 16; CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4, para. 10.
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 2.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Family v. Venezuela, judgment of 24 November
2011, para. 124.
CCPR/C/PRY/CO/3, para. 15.
CCPR/C/SRB/CO/2, para. 21; A/HRC/20/22 and Corr.1, para. 105.
CCPR/C/COL/CO/6, para. 14.
CCPR/C/HND/CO/1, para. 9.
CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4, para. 24.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, judgment of
17 June 2005, para. 167.
CCPR/C/COL/CO/6, para. 12.
CCPR/C/TZA/CO/4, para. 15.
A/HRC/11/2, para. 68.
CCPR/C/KEN/CO/3, para. 12.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 10.
Ibid., arts. 5 (3) and 9.
CCPR/C/AUS/CO/5, para. 21.
Leach v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/57/D/546/1993), para. 9.5.
Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008), para. 8.6; Human Rights Committee, Dermit
Barbato v. Uruguay, communication No. 84/1981, para. 9.2.
Lantsova v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/74/D/763/1997), para. 9.2.
Ibid.
European Court of Human Rights, Edwards v. United Kingdom (application No. 46477/99), judgment
of 14 June 2002, para. 60.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 14.
European Court of Human Rights, Câmpeanu v. Romania (application No. 47848/08), judgment of 17
July 2014, para. 131.
CCPR/C/ARM/CO/2, para. 15.
CCPR/C/UNK/CO/1, para. 14.