University of Minnesota

Eric Hammel v. Madagascar, Communication No. 155/1983, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 11 (1990).


Submitted by: Eric Hammel on 1 August 1983
Alleged victim: The author
State party: Madagascar
Date of interim decision: 2 April 1986 (twenty-seventh session)

Procedural issues: Insufficiency of submissions from both author and State party--Request for further information

Article of the Optional Protocol: 4(2)

The Human Rights Committee,

Noting the information placed before it by the parties, including the information furnished after the communication was declared admissible on 28 March 1985, that is, the author's submission of 18 September 1985, the State party's submission of 27 September 1985, the author's comments of 17 October 1985 and the State party's further observations of 13 January 1986,

Noting the observation of the State party that the two applications ledged by the author with the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, one concerning the Postal Administration and the other for the abrogation of the expulsion order, are still pending,

Noting the State party's observation that the author could have sought review of the expulsion order pursuant to articles 6 and 15 of Act No. 62-006,

Noting further the author's comment that, in the circumstances of his expulsion, it was materially impossible for him to avail himself of the remedy provided for by Act No. 62-006 within the stipulated eight-day time limit, considering that he was notified of the expulsion order at 2 p-m- on Thursday, 11 February 1982, and that he was expelled a few hours later on the same day,

Wishing to be further informed on the points noted above,


1. That the author of the communication be requested to clarify further why he did not pursue the remedy provided for in Act No. 62-006 during the week from 12 to 19 February 1982;

2. That the State party be requested to indicate when the proceedings lodged by Maitre Eric Hammel before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court are expected to be concluded, if pursued in a timely fashion by the parties;

3. That the State party be requested further to in. form the Committee as to the reasons for Maitre Harmmel's expulsion at such short notice, without his being able to seek review of the decision to expel him prior to his expulsion;

4. That both parties be requested to provide the Committee with the information and clarifications sought within two months of the transmittal to them of the present decision, in care of the Centre for Human, Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva;

5. That any information or clarifications received from either party pursuant to this decision be communicated to the other party for information;

6. That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication.

* Not previously published in the annual report of the Human Rights Committee.


Home || Treaties || Search || Links