CCPR/C/113/D/2028/2011 Appendix II [Original: French] Joint opinion of Committee members Olivier de Frouville, Mauro Politi Victor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia and Fabián Omar Salvioli (partly dissenting) 1. In paragraph 9.8 of its Views, the Committee decided not to examine separately the author’s allegations under articles 10 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Committee seems thereby to wish to implement the principle of economy of means: “In the light of the above findings, the Committee will not examine separately …”. It considers, in other words, that the substance of the author’s allegations has already been taken into account by the Committee in its review of the State party’s compliance with articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant, found to have been violated in the preceding paragraph (9.7). This is not, however, borne out by a reading of the conclusions of the author, who does not cite articles 10 and 16 for the sake of completeness but rather by way of a separate allegation. There are thus no grounds for applying the principle of economy of means in this instance. 2. On the merits of the claim, it could perhaps be argued that the allegation under article 10 was subsumed by the concurrent invocation of article 7. It is true that the Committee, like other international courts whose benchmarks do not contain a specific article concerning conditions of detention, increasingly tends to deal with these questions with reference to article 7 and to the condemnation of inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the authors make a clear distinction in this instance between two aspects: on the one hand, enforced disappearance, violating in itself article 7 of the Covenant (para. 3.5); and, on the other, the conditions of detention in the Omarska camp, where Mr. Ičić had been imprisoned and the atrocious and inhuman nature of which has been widely documented, notably in the judgements of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (para. 3.7).a It would therefore have been preferable for the Committee to have found a separate violation of article 10. 3. However, it is the decision not to examine the allegation under article 16 that seems most open to criticism: on the one hand, the Committee does not contest the characterization of the facts of the case as “enforced disappearance” (para. 9.3); yet, on the other hand, it finds that there are no grounds for ruling on the allegation of violation of article 16, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In our view, these two statements are incompatible since we consider that any enforced disappearance necessarily involves a violation of article 16. 4. Article 16 recognizes the right of everyone “to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. The preparatory work for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear that the concept of “legal personality” is not simply concerned with the capacity of individuals to act, which is accompanied by recognition of the right to enter into contracts and contractual liability, but rather with sharing with others recognition as a subject of law, enjoying individual rights a The author refers to the judgement of the Tribunal in Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al, 2 November 2001 (case No. IT-98/30-1), para. 197. 17