CCPR/C/112/D/2026/2011 Appendix [Original: English] Individual opinion of Gerald L. Neuman (concurring) 1. I concur fully with the Committee’s Views in this case. I write separately, however, because the interplay between the author’s requests for remedial measures, recounted in paragraph 3.12 of the Views, and the Committee’s response in paragraph 9 of the Views, illustrates some important issues regarding the remedial practice of the Committee. 2. In addition to investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the grave violations found here, the author requests the Committee to order (ordonner) the State party to provide appropriate reparation including measures of compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Counsel for this author has urged the Committee in other submissions to align itself with the remedial practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and thus to include in its Views express direction of measures of satisfaction that a state must provide, such as the issuance of an official apology, the building of a monument to the victim, or the naming of a street after the victim.a 3. The Human Rights Committee is not the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and should not try to be. The Inter-American Court has powers that the Committee lacks, and the Committee has powers that the Inter-American Court lacks; the two bodies face vastly different caseloads and employ very different procedures. b The Inter-American Court regards itself as having broad remedial discretion, and it exercises that discretion quite freely in ordering highly specific measures. 4. In the remedial paragraphs of its Views on communications, the Committee normally distinguishes between individual measures of reparation to the particular victims, and general measures to avoid similar violations of the rights of other persons in the future. The Committee links the individual measures of reparation to the obligation of states under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to ensure that any person whose rights under the Covenant are violated shall have an effective remedy, and links the general measures to obligations under article 2 as a whole.c The obligation to ensure an effective remedy for the victim at the domestic level attaches to violations of the Covenant, independently of whether they become the subject of a communication under the Optional Protocol. 5. As in the present case, reparation for a past violation would often involve a set of remedial measures that, taken in combination, satisfy the standard of an effective remedy. Some of these measures may be indispensable elements without which the combined remedy would not be effective. The Committee has explained, for example, that cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy. d In cases a b c d 12 Those who have followed the public meetings of the Committee on the subject of its working methods during the October 2014 session will be aware that the Committee is currently engaged in consideration of changes in its remedial practice. See UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.3125 and UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.3134, which attempt to capture in abbreviated form the discussion by the Committee. I have tried to examine generally factors that should inform such discussions in a recent article, BiLevel Remedies for Human Rights Violations, 55 Harvard International Law Journal 325 (2014). See also, in this regard, the concurring opinion in communication No. 1874/2009, Mihoubi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 18 October 2013. See general comment No. 33, para. 14; general comment No. 31, para. 17. General comment No. 31, para. 15. GE.14-24387