on Civil and Political Rights,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 727/1996
submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Mr. Dobroslav Paraga, under the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Submitted by: Mr. Dobroslav Paraga
Alleged victim: The author
State party: Croatia
Date of communication: 16 April 1996 (initial submission)
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of
the International Covenant
Having taken into account all written information made available
to it by the author of the communication and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol
1. The author of the communication, dated 16 April 1996, is Dobroslav Paraga,
a Croatian citizen residing in Zagreb. He claims to be a victim of violations
by Croatia of articles 2, paragraph 3, 9, paragraphs 1 and 5, 7, 12, paragraph
2, 14, paragraphs 2 and 7, 19, paragraphs 1 and 2, 25 and 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Covenant entered into force
for Croatia on 8 October 1991; the Optional Protocol entered into force
for Croatia on 12 January 1996. He is not represented by Counsel.
The facts and claims as submitted by the author
2.1 The author notes that he has been a human rights activist throughout
his life, and that he was imprisoned, tortured and was the subject of
political trials in the former Yugoslavia. In 1990, he re-organized the
Croatian Party of Rights ("HSP"), which had been banned since 1929. He
then became the president of the HSP.
2.2 According to the author, following the disintegration of the former
Yugoslavia, the new Croatian State has similarly subjected him to persecution
and to numerous repressive measures, such as unlawful arrests, false declarations,
political trials, unjustified arrest warrants, etc.
2.3 On 21 September 1991, the vice-president of the HSP, Ante Paradzik,
was murdered after attending a political rally. The author contends that
the attack had also targeted him, and that it was by pure chance that
he had not been in the car with his colleague. In 1993, four officials
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were convicted of the murder; they
were reportedly released in 1995.
2.4 On 22 November 1991, Mr. Paraga was arrested after a police ambush,
on charges of planning to overthrow the Government. He was kept in detention
until 18 December 1991, when his release was ordered after the High Court
found that there was insufficient evidence in support of the charge. The
author alleges a violation of article 9, paragraph 1 and 5, in this connection.
He also claims that the president of the High Court was dismissed from
his functions after having ruled in his favour.
2.5 On 1 March 1992, an explosion occurred in the offices of the HSP
in Vinkovci, where the author had expected to be. Several people died
in the blast, but according to the author, no formal investigation has
ever taken place. On 21 April 1992, the author was summoned for having
called the President of the Republic a dictator. Mr. Paraga claims that
these events constitute a violation of article 19 of the Covenant, since
the measures against him were aimed at restricting his freedom of expression.
2.6 On 2 June 1992, Mr. Paraga states that he was charged with "illegal
mobilization of persons into an army". He claims that this charge was
designed to prevent him from participating in an election campaign for
Parliament and to run for election for the Presidency of the Republic.
To the author, this was in violation of article 25 of the Covenant, since
he was effectively prevented from being a candidate in the elections.
Moreover, he argues that the elections were rigged.
2.7 On 30 September 1992, the public prosecutor filed an action in the
Constitutional Court, with a view to obtaining a declaration banning the
HSP. On 8 November 1992, a military court in Zagreb initiated an investigation
against the HSP for conspiracy to overthrow the Government. For the author,
this action constituted a violation of article 14, paragraph 7, since
he had already been acquitted on this charge in 1991. His parliamentary
immunity was withdrawn for 13 months. On 4 November 1993, the military
court dismissed the charges against the author.
2.8 After a trip to the United States during which the author had called
the President of the Republic an oppressor, he was charged with slander
on 3 June 1993. Parliament stripped the author of his function as vice-chairman
of the parliamentary committee on human and ethnic rights. The author
claims that a member of the secret police admitted in a statement printed
by a weekly newspaper in July 1993 that he had received an order to assassinate
2.9 On 28 September 1993, the ministry of registrations cancelled the
author's right to represent the HSP and, according to the author, granted
it to an agent who represented the Government, thereby making the HSP
a simple extension of the ruling party. The author's complaints to the
Court of Registrars and to the Constitutional Court were rejected.
2.10 In the parliamentary elections of October 1995, the author participated
with a new party, the "Croatian Party of Rights - 1861", but failed to
secure re-election. He argues that because of the sanctions against him,
he could not compete fairly in the election, in violation of article 25
of the Covenant. According to the author, the Polling Committee violated
the Election Law which allowed the HSP (then led by a Government agent)
to enter Parliament although it had not obtained the required 5 per cent
of the total vote. The author and leaders of 10 other political parties
filed an objection, which the Constitutional Court dismissed on 20 November
2.11 The author notes that attacks on his person continue. He refers
to a court order dated 31 January 1995, which was confirmed on 25 March
1996, that he must vacate the office premises he occupies. To him, this
was done to obstruct him in his political activities. He further notes
that his political party was elected as part of the coalition Government
in the County Government of Zagreb, but that the President of the Republic
did not accept the results of the election and blocked the appointment
of a mayor.
State party's observations on admissibility and author's comments
3.1 In comments dated 31 October 1997, the State party recalls that when
acceding to the Optional Protocol, it made the following declaration which
limits the competence ratione temporis of the Committee to examine
communications: "The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this
Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider
communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic
of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any
rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions
or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into
force for the Republic of Croatia". For the State party, the author's
allegations relate almost exclusively to events and acts which occurred
well before the Protocol entered into force for Croatia on 12 January
3.2 For the State party, the alleged violations cannot be taken as a
continuing process which, together, constitute a separate and continuing
violation of the author's Covenant rights. Moreover, some of the judicial
procedures referred to by the applicant were resolved in his favour, such
as the proceedings related to the ban of the HSP, which the public prosecutor
decided to discontinue. That the author was involved in a number of judicial
procedures over the years does not prove that these procedures were mutually
inter-related, nor does it generate the continuing effect the procedures
may have had on the enjoyment of the author's rights.
3.3 It is conceded that an exception to the above observations is the
court order issued against Mr. Paraga to vacate the premises he and his
party occupy, which was confirmed on 25 March 1996, i.e. after the entry
into force of the Optional Protocol for Croatia. However, the State party
argues that as Mr. Paraga does not claim a violation of article 26 in
this regard but a violation of his right to property, which is not protected
by the Covenant, this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione
materiae. Besides, the State party notes, the Constitutional Court
of Croatia can address both the prohibition of discrimination on the basis
of political opinion and the protection of property, in the context of
the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
As this avenue was not used by the author in respect of this allegation,
available domestic remedies have not been exhausted.
3.4 Thus, the State party considers the communication to be inadmissible
partly on account of its declaration ratione temporis and, partly
because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
4.1 In his comments, the author contends that all the consequences, legal
or otherwise, of actions taken against him by the Croatian authorities
have had continuing effects. He reiterates that:
(a) the murder of his former deputy and vice-president of the HSP, Ante
Paradzik, was never completely solved. After the second trial of four
members of the Interior Ministry, the perpetrators of the crime were pardoned,
and the judge who had sentenced them for conspiracy lost his job;
(b) the legal action initiated against the author which led to his arrest
on 22 November 1991 and which resulted in his release for lack of evidence
was never formally finalized, so that the author cannot initiate an action
for compensation for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention;
(c) the procedure against the author initiated on 21 April 1992 for
the offence of slander has not been terminated;
(d) no fair and impartial investigation into the bombing of the headquarters
of his party on 1 March 1992 in Vinkovci was ever conducted;
(e) no impartial investigation into the alleged rigging of the elections
of 2 August 1992 was carried out;
(f) no investigation into the alleged assassination scheme against the
author in March 1993, claimed to have been plotted by members of the Government,
was ever carried out;
(g) and finally, after the author was stripped of the leadership of
the HSP, his (former) party was turned into a "satellite" of the ruling
4.2 The author affirms that he is a victim of a violation of article
26, on the grounds that he has been discriminated against because of his
political opinions. On 7 October 1997, the County Court of Zagreb initiated
proceedings against the author on the basis of article 191 of the Criminal
Code of Croatia, for spreading false information; the author notes that
he may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment if found guilty. On 4
December 1997, the author was arrested at the Austrian border, allegedly
after misinformation about the purpose of the author's visit had wilfully
been given to the Austrian authorities by the Croatian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs - the author was kept 16 hours in Austrian detention. A similar
event had already occurred on the occasion of a visit by the author to
Canada, when he was kept detained for six days in Toronto in June 1996,
allegedly because the Croatian Government had accused him of subversive
4.3 The author rejects as incorrect the Government's argument that the
legal procedures related to the evacuation and dispossession of the flat
used as an office of the author's political party had nothing to do with
discrimination on the basis of political opinion. Rather, he asserts,
it was only because of international public pressure and due to the intervention
of the flat's owner, who has dual (Croatian/Canadian) citizenship, that
the court decision of 25 March 1996 was not enforced.
4.4 As to the possibility of having the Constitutional Court rule on
claims of unlawful discrimination and illegal expropriation and violations
of other fundamental rights, the author contends that the Court "is an
instrument of the governing oligarchy and that [on] essential matters,
the decisions of ... President Tudjmam" are not questioned. Therefore,
such constitutional remedies are said to be ineffective, and the author
argues that in respect of all the above issues and claims, he has exhausted
5.1 During its sixty-third session, the Committee considered the admissibility
of the communication.
5.2 The Committee recalled that upon acceding to the Optional Protocol,
the State party entered a declaration restricting the Committee's competence
to events following the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for
Croatia on 12 January 1996. The Committee noted that most of the alleged
violations of Mr. Paraga's rights under the Covenant result from a series
of acts and events which occurred between 1991 and 1995 and thus precede
the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Croatia.
5.3 The Committee considered, however, that the author's claims that
he cannot initiate an action for compensation for his allegedly unlawful
arrest and detention of 22 November 1991, since the proceedings have never
been formally finalized, as well as his claim that the procedure initiated
against him on 21 April 1992 for slander has never been terminated, relate
to incidents that have continuing effects which in themselves may
constitute a violation of the Covenant. The Committee considered therefore
that these claims were admissible and should be examined on the merits.
5.4 The Committee considered that it was precluded ratione temporis,
in light of the declaration made by the State party upon accession to
the Optional Protocol, from considering the remainder of the communication
in so far as it related to events which occurred before 12 January 1996,
since the continuing effects claimed by Mr. Paraga did not appear to constitute
in themselves a violation of the Covenant, nor could they be interpreted
as an affirmation, by act or clear implication, of the alleged previous
violations of the State party.
5.5 In relation to the court order ordering the author to vacate the
apartment he uses as an office of his political party, the Committee noted
the State party's argument that complaints about unlawful and arbitrary
dispossession of property and unlawful discrimination may be adjudicated
by the Constitutional Court. The author merely contended that this remedy
is not effective, as the Constitutional Court is "an instrument of the
governing oligarchy". The Committee recalled that mere doubts about the
effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve a complainant from resorting
to them; the Committee noted in this context that in respect of other
alleged violations of his rights, Croatian tribunals had ruled in the
author's favour in the past. In the circumstances, the Committee concluded
that recourse to the Constitutional Court in relation to the order to
vacate the apartment used as office premises by the author would not be
a priori futile. Accordingly, the requirements of article 5, paragraph
2(b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met in this respect.
5.6 With regard to the author's claim that he is a victim of a violation
of article 26, referred to in paragraph 4.2 above, the Committee considered
that this claim was admissible and should be examined on its merits.
6. Accordingly, on 24 July 1998, the Human Rights Committee decided that
the communication was admissible in so far as it related to the author's
arrest and detention on 22 November 1991, the slander proceedings initiated
against him on 21 April 1992, and his claim that he was a victim of discrimination.
The State party's information and the author's reply on the merits
of the communication
7.1 In its submission on the merits, the State party provides further
information on the proceedings involving the author's arrest and detention
in November 1991, and on the charges of "dissemination of false information''
of April 1992, and confirms that proceedings with respect to all related
charges have now been terminated.
7.2 The State party confirms that Mr. Paraga was arrested on 22 November
1991, that his detention was ordered by the investigating judge
with reference to articles 191, paragraph 2, points 2 and 3 of the Criminal
Procedures Act, and that he was released on 18 December 1991, by the Zagreb
7.3 The State party states that on 25 November 1991 the Zagreb County
Public Attorney's Office filed a request under No. KT - 566/91 to initiate
an investigation against Mr. Paraga on charges of "armed rebellion" and
charges of "illegal possession of weapons and explosives", pursuant to
Article 236 (f), paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 209, paragraphs 2 and
3, respectively, of the Croatian Penal Code, which was in force at the
time. A request for custody was also made under Article 191, paragraph
2, points 2 and 3 of the Criminal Procedures Act.
7.4 The investigating judge rejected the request to conduct an investigation
and delivered the case to a panel of judges who decided to conduct an
investigation with respect to Article 209, paragraphs 2 and 3 only. However,
the County Public Attorney's Office failed to issue an indictment, and
did not ask the investigating judge to proceed with the investigation.
Therefore, the investigating judge forwarded the file to the panel of
three judges again, who decided to discontinue further proceedings against
Mr. Paraga, pursuant to Article 162, paragraph 1, point 3, of the Criminal
Procedures Act, in a decision dated No. Kv-48/98 of 10 June 1998. According
to the State party, the decision was sent to Mr. Paraga on 17 June 1998
and received by him on 19 June 1998.
7.5 The State party claims that Mr. Paraga's arrest was conducted legally,
in accordance with the Criminal Procedures Act in force at the time and
that, therefore, the Republic of Croatia did not violate Article 9, paragraph
1, of the Covenant. Moreover, the State party notes that since the procedure
has been terminated the author may take an action for compensation before
the Croatian courts, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 5, of the
7.6 The State party confirms that proceedings were instituted by the
Municipal Public Attorney's Office, in April 1992, for "dissemination
of false information", under Article 191 of the Penal Code (Article 197,
paragraph 1, of the earlier Code), pursuant to Article 425, paragraph
1, with reference to article 260, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Criminal
Proceedings Act. (See further below). The State party states that due
to amendments made to the respective provisions of the Penal Code, and
the passage of time, the Split Municipal Court, who had received the indictment
from the Public Attorney's office, dismissed the charge
Mr. Paragon in a decision, No. IK-504/92, issued on 26 January 1999.
7.7 As for the alleged discrimination due to the author's political views,
especially after his interviews with Novi list daily, the State
party confirms that the Zagreb Municipal Public Attorney's Office instituted
proceedings against Mr. Paraga on 7 October 1997, for "dissemination of
false information", pursuant to Article 191 of the Penal Code in force
at that time. However, upon completion of the ensuing inquiry, the criminal
proceedings were dismissed on 26 January 1998.
7.8 The State party explains, that the dissemination of false information,
pursuant to the then applicable Article 191 of the Penal Code, could have
been "committed by a person who transmits or spreads news or information
known by the person to be false, and likely to disturb a greater number
of citizens, and also intended to cause such disturbance." Under the new
Penal Code, in force since 1 January 1998, the same criminal offence is
now referred to as "dissemination of false and disturbing rumours" (Article
322 of the Penal Code) and to be convicted thereon "the perpetrator must
know that the rumours he/she spreads are false, his/her purpose is to
disturb a greater number of citizens, and a greater number of citizens
are disturbed." What is required, therefore, is that the effect corresponds
with the intent. According to the State party, as this was not the case
in this instance, the criminal charges were dropped and proceedings against
Mr. Paraga were terminated on 26 January 1998.
7.9 Regarding the author's allegation that he was arrested and detained
on the Austrian border on 4 December 1997 and on the Canadian border in
June 1996, on the basis of false information given earlier by the Croatian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the purpose of his travel, the Croatian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly reject such allegations as malicious
and entirely unfounded. According to the State party, the Croatian Embassy
in Vienna requested and received an official explanation from the Austrian
authorities about Mr. Paraga's detention which, it claims, was only brought
to its attention by the Austrian press. The State party was informed that
Mr. Paraga had entered Austria as a Slovenian citizen, and was detained
until certain facts were established on why Mr. Paraga had been denied
entry to Austria back in 1995. It was also informed that a complaint filed
by Mr. Paraga himself against his detention was still being processed.
The State party claims that as Mr. Paraga had not notified the Croatian
diplomatic mission of the incident, it was not possible to protect him
under the international conventions.
7.10 Similarly, the State party claims that it was only informed by the
press of Mr. Paraga's detention by the Canadian Immigration Office in
Toronto and that on becoming aware of his detention, the Consul General
of the Republic of Croatia in Mississauga contacted Mr. Paraga's attorney
who refused to give him any information. The Consul General then attempted
to contact Mr. Henry Ciszek, supervisor of the Canadian Immigration Office
at Toronto Airport, who informed him that Mr. Paraga travelled with a
Slovenian passport (his Croatian passport did not have a valid Canadian
visa), and that he refused consular protection by refusing to speak to
the Consul General.
8.1 The author rejects the State party's submissions on the merits as
"completely untrue". With respect to his arrest and detention in
November 1991, the author claims that he was arrested "without charge"and
arrested and detained "arbitrarily and absolutely without basis" for political
reasons only. The author alleges that the President of the Republic of
Croatia exerted pressure on the then president of the Supreme Court to
sentence him "illegally" and that when he refused to do so, he was dismissed
from his position as the President of the Supreme Court on 24 December
8.2 The author confirms that the court decision terminating these proceedings
against him was issued on 10 June 1998. However, he states that this was
only issued after he had filed a communication with the Human Rights Committee,
and after filing a fourth "rush note" for termination of the procedure,
with the County Court of Zagreb. In addition, the author states that at
least from 1991 to 1998 he was under criminal investigation and that this
deprived him of his civil and political rights as "person under investigation
cannot have any permanent job, he is not allowed to use social and health
care or to be employed".
8.3 With regard to the charges initiated against Mr. Paragon in April
1992 for slander, the author concedes that these charges were terminated
but contends that this took seven years from the date he was charged.
8.4 In relation to the charges made on 7 October 1997 for the dissemination
of false information the author contends that, despite the State party's
claim to the contrary, these proceedings have not yet been finalized.
The author states that he has not received any decision on the termination
of these proceedings. The author reiterates his belief that his arrest
by border guards in Canada in 1996 and in Austria in 1997 resulted from
the Croatian authorities information to the border controls of both countries
that the author was involved in subversive activities. In fact, the author
claims that he was informed of such by both the Canadian and Austrian
immigration authorities. He refutes the State party's contention that
they were prepared to offer him help during his detention in Canada and
Austria and claims that on neither occasion did the Croatian authorities
assist to have him released. The author claims that he lodged a complaint
against the Government of Croatia for compensation for damages after his
detention in Canada and Austria for what he refers to as "misuse of power".
Reconsideration of the admissibility decision and examination of
9.1 The Human Rights Committee has examined the communication in light
of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided
for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph
2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
9.3 With respect to the author's alleged unlawful arrest and detention
of 22 November 1991 the Committee decided, in its admissibility
decision of 24 July 1998, that the communication was admissible
in so far as it related to the continuing effects of the criminal proceedings,
which were instituted against the author at this time and were
still pending at the time of the submission of the communication. The
Committee recalls that its decision on admissibility was predicated on
the alleged continuing effects of violations that are said to have occurred
prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Croatia.
9.4 The Committee notes the State party's contention that these
proceedings were terminated on 17 June 1998, and its contention that the
author can now file a claim for compensation in the domestic
courts. Given this new information provided since the decision on admissibility,
the Committee reviews its previous decision on admissibility, in accordance
with rule 93(4) of its rules of procedure, and declares that the claims
relating to an alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 5, is inadmissible
because of the authors failure to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect
under article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol. The author should
avail himself of domestic remedies in this regard.
9.5 The Committee proceeds without delay to the consideration of the
merits of the claim with respect to the slander proceedings and the alleged
9.6 In relation to the slander proceedings, the Committee has noted the
author's contention that proceedings were instituted against him because
he referred to the President of the Republic as a dictator. While the
State party has not refuted that the author was indeed charged for this
reason, it has informed the Committee that the charges against the author
were finally dismissed by the court in January 1999. The Committee
observes that a provision in the Penal Code under which such proceedings
could be instituted may, in certain circumstances, lead to restrictions
that go beyond those permissible under article 19, paragraph 3 of the
Government. However, given the absence of specific information provided
by the author and the further fact of the dismissal of the charges against
the author, the Committee is unable to conclude that the institution of
proceedings against the author, by itself, amounted to a violation of
article 19 of the Covenant.
9.7 The Committee observes, that the charges brought against Mr. Paraga
in November 1991 and the slander charges brought against him in April
1992 raise the issue of undue delay (article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the
Covenant). The Committee is of the view that this issue is admissible
as the proceedings were not terminated until two and a half years and
three years, respectively, after the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol in respect of the State party. The Committee notes that
both procedures took seven years altogether to be finalized, and
observes that the State party, although it has provided information on
the course of the proceedings, has not given any explanation on why the
procedures in relation to these charges took so long and has provided
no special reasons that could justify the delay. The Committee considers,
therefore, that the author was not given a trial "without undue delay",
within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the Covenant.
9.8 As to the author's claim that he is a victim of discrimination because
of his political opposition to the then Government of Croatia, the Committee
notes that the proceedings which were instituted against the author on
7 October 1997 were dismissed, a few months later, on 26 January 1998.
In view of this fact, and lacking any further information that would substantiate
this claim, the Committee cannot find a violation of any of the articles
of the Covenant in this regard.
9.9 With regard to the author's allegation that he was subjected to defamation
by the Croatian authorities in Austria and Canada, the Committee notes
that the State party has stated that in neither case did the author inform
the Croatian authorities of his detention and that with respect to his
entry into Canada he was travelling on a Slovenian passport. The Committee
notes that the author has not further commented on these points. Therefore,
the Committee concludes that the author has not substantiated his claim
and considers that there has been no violation in this respect.
10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4,
of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee reveal
a violation by Croatia of article 14, paragraph 3 (c).
11. Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the Committee
considers that the author is entitled to an effective remedy,
including appropriate compensation.
12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol,
the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine
whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant
to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure
to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
the rights recognized in the Covenant to provide an effective and enforceable
remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes
to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the
measures taken to give effect to its Views.
Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be translated in Arabic, Chinese and Russian
as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.
** The following members of the Committee participated in the
examination of the case: Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Mr. Nisuke Ando, Ms. Christine
Chanet, Mr. Eckart Klein, Mr. David Kretzmer, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Ms.
Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada, Mr. Martin Scheinin,
Mr. Ivan Shearer, Mr. Hipólito Solari Yrigoyen, Mr. Ahmed Tawfic Khalil,
Mr. Patrick Vella, Mr. Maxwell Yalden.
1. See the Committee's Views on communication No. 516/1992 (Simunek et
al. v. Czech Republic), adopted 19 July 1995, paragraph 4.5.
2. The author does not provide any details that may substantiate this
3. It is noted that the claimant registered two communications with the
European Court of Human Rights in 1999, however, the issues raised therein
differ from those raised in this communication.