LCP4807
Assignment 2
Unique No:
Due 18 September 2025
,Legal Opinion
For: Movement Against Death Penalty (MADP)
Re: Potential Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR and its
Optional Protocols
I. Introduction
This opinion evaluates whether MADP, acting on behalf of Mr. Mbhekwe, could submit
an individual communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) in
terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its
Optional Protocols.
The analysis considers three core issues:
1. Procedural admissibility;
2. Substantive grounds for alleging rights violations; and
3. Possible remedies available from the HRC.
II. Procedural Issues
A. Jurisdiction under the First Optional Protocol (OP1-ICCPR)
The ICCPR, adopted in 1966, obliges States Parties to respect fundamental civil and
political rights, including the right to life, procedural fairness in criminal trials, and
protection from torture or other cruel treatment.
While the Covenant itself contains no direct mechanism for individuals to lodge
complaints, the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (OP1), which came into effect in
1976, grants such a right. Article 1 of OP1 authorises the HRC to receive and consider
communications from individuals who claim that a State Party has breached their
ICCPR rights.
, Accordingly, the Committee’s jurisdiction depends on whether the State of Kamarara
has ratified OP1. Without ratification, the HRC cannot entertain an individual complaint
from Mr. Mbhekwe, and any submission would fail for lack of jurisdiction.
B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Article 2 of OP1 requires that applicants first use all available and effective domestic
remedies before approaching the HRC. Exceptions are made where such remedies are
clearly unavailable, unlikely to succeed, or subject to excessive delay.
In this case, Mr. Mbhekwe’s appeal process included:
The High Court;
The Supreme Court of Appeal; and
The Constitutional Court, which on 19 June 2019 dismissed both his appeal
against conviction and his constitutional challenge to the mandatory death
penalty.
Given this litigation history, it is clear that the domestic remedy requirement has been
satisfied.
C. Other Admissibility Requirements
For the communication to be admissible, it must also:
Be in writing and include the applicant’s identity;
Be filed with Mr. Mbhekwe’s signed authorisation allowing MADP to act on his
behalf;
Not be under consideration by another international tribunal;
Present a coherent and substantiated account of the facts and legal claims;
Be filed within a reasonable time following exhaustion of local remedies;
Avoid being manifestly ill-founded or lodged in bad faith.
Assignment 2
Unique No:
Due 18 September 2025
,Legal Opinion
For: Movement Against Death Penalty (MADP)
Re: Potential Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR and its
Optional Protocols
I. Introduction
This opinion evaluates whether MADP, acting on behalf of Mr. Mbhekwe, could submit
an individual communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) in
terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its
Optional Protocols.
The analysis considers three core issues:
1. Procedural admissibility;
2. Substantive grounds for alleging rights violations; and
3. Possible remedies available from the HRC.
II. Procedural Issues
A. Jurisdiction under the First Optional Protocol (OP1-ICCPR)
The ICCPR, adopted in 1966, obliges States Parties to respect fundamental civil and
political rights, including the right to life, procedural fairness in criminal trials, and
protection from torture or other cruel treatment.
While the Covenant itself contains no direct mechanism for individuals to lodge
complaints, the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (OP1), which came into effect in
1976, grants such a right. Article 1 of OP1 authorises the HRC to receive and consider
communications from individuals who claim that a State Party has breached their
ICCPR rights.
, Accordingly, the Committee’s jurisdiction depends on whether the State of Kamarara
has ratified OP1. Without ratification, the HRC cannot entertain an individual complaint
from Mr. Mbhekwe, and any submission would fail for lack of jurisdiction.
B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Article 2 of OP1 requires that applicants first use all available and effective domestic
remedies before approaching the HRC. Exceptions are made where such remedies are
clearly unavailable, unlikely to succeed, or subject to excessive delay.
In this case, Mr. Mbhekwe’s appeal process included:
The High Court;
The Supreme Court of Appeal; and
The Constitutional Court, which on 19 June 2019 dismissed both his appeal
against conviction and his constitutional challenge to the mandatory death
penalty.
Given this litigation history, it is clear that the domestic remedy requirement has been
satisfied.
C. Other Admissibility Requirements
For the communication to be admissible, it must also:
Be in writing and include the applicant’s identity;
Be filed with Mr. Mbhekwe’s signed authorisation allowing MADP to act on his
behalf;
Not be under consideration by another international tribunal;
Present a coherent and substantiated account of the facts and legal claims;
Be filed within a reasonable time following exhaustion of local remedies;
Avoid being manifestly ill-founded or lodged in bad faith.
