Question on Time Frame and Continuing Violations



Barry Hart v. Australia, Human Rights Committee, Communication No 947/2000, 27 Oct 2000.
As the Optional Protocol entered into force for Australia on 25 December 1991, the Committee is precluded ratione temporis from considering allegations that relate to events that occurred before this date, unless they had continuing effects that in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant.

Thus the author's complaints regarding his treatment at Chelmsford, the civil trial against Dr Herron and the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal staying the disciplinary proceedings against Dr Herron, which all occurred before 25 December 1991, must be considered inadmissible.

In this case, the Committee did not find that the long term health effects suffered by the victim constituted a continuing violation.



Analysis of views and decisions prepared for IWRAW Asia Pacific by Amanda Norejko, former student of New York University, International Human Rights Clinic