CCPR/C/121/D/2610/2015 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member Sarah Cleveland (partly concurring, partly dissenting) 1. I disagree with the Committee’s deference to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the adequacy of the investigation (paras. 9.4−9.6) and its inadmissibility finding regarding the failure of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to protect the author and her son (para. 8.4). Inadequate investigation 2. Human rights defender Joe Castillo was murdered, and his wife and son suffered multiple injuries, in an environment in which paramilitary attacks on activists protecting land rights were tragically common. The investigation was closed in November 2006, without any person being identified as criminally responsible. 3. The claims were previously considered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights under the American Convention on Human Rights. While one could imagine a different approach to the relationship among international human rights bodies, the Committee’s longstanding jurisprudence holds that, absent a reservation, prior examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement does not prevent the Committee’s consideration of a claim. Nor does it prevent the Committee, after sound consideration, from occasionally reaching a conclusion under the Covenant that is different from that under another international human rights instrument. 4. The Committee observes that the Inter-American Commission and Court thoroughly reviewed the claims made by the author against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that the resulting decisions “deserve due weight” (para. 8.3). It concludes that the author has failed to provide sufficient information to contradict the findings of the Inter-American Court and thus cannot conclude that the State party failed to conduct an adequate investigation (para. 9.6). 5. Unfortunately, however, the Inter-American Commission and Court reached diametrically opposed conclusions regarding the adequacy of the investigation into Mr. Castillo’s murder. The Committee never explains why it gives “due weight” to the conclusion of the Court over that of the Commission in this context. Nor does the Committee ever independently analyse or explain how the investigation satisfies the Committee’s own standards for an adequate investigation under article 6. This deference is particularly concerning, given that the standard applied by the Inter-American Court in Castillo v. Venezuela appears inconsistent with both the prior and subsequent jurisprudence of that Court. 6. The essence of the author’s claim is that while some measures were taken to investigate the murder of Joe Castillo, particularly relating to examination of the specific crime scene (paras. 6.2 and 6.13), the investigation nevertheless was seriously flawed. In particular, the State party repeatedly failed to pursue information implicating paramilitaries and State authorities, including the mayor of Machiques. 7. As the author indicates, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State party did not carry out serious and effective investigations to identify those responsible. The relevant concerns include the failure to conduct ballistic comparison tests of weapons seized from suspects with the shells from the bullets that struck Joe Castillo; the failure to examine the overall context in which the events occurred (including the known risk to human rights activists, particularly land activists, in the area); the modus operandi of certain actors (including paramilitaries); the lack of investigation of related judicial proceedings in Colombia; and the failure to pursue direct evidence of the possible participation of paramilitary and/or State agents in the attack (note 3 and para. 3.6). 13