LCP4807
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
LEGAL OPINION ON BRINGING THE CASE OF MR TIMOTHY IBO BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (HRC)
This legal opinion provides a critical analysis of the procedural viability of taking Mr Ibo's
case before the HRC, assesses the merits of the case, identifies the specific rights allegedly
violated by the imposition of the death penalty, and outlines the remedies available through
the HRC. In doing so, the opinion draws upon the ICCPR, its Optional Protocols, and
relevant African regional instruments, offering authoritative references throughout.
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN BRINGING A CASE BEFORE THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1.1 The Human Rights Committee and Its Jurisdiction
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to supervise the implementation of state
parties' obligations under the Covenant.1 However, the Committee’s jurisdiction to receive
and consider individual communications is not inherent; it is contingent upon the state party's
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
LEGAL OPINION ON BRINGING THE CASE OF MR TIMOTHY IBO BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (HRC)
This legal opinion provides a critical analysis of the procedural viability of taking Mr
Ibo's case before the HRC, assesses the merits of the case, identifies the specific
rights allegedly violated by the imposition of the death penalty, and outlines the
remedies available through the HRC. In doing so, the opinion draws upon the
ICCPR, its Optional Protocols, and relevant African regional instruments, offering
authoritative references throughout.
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN BRINGING A CASE BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1.1 The Human Rights Committee and Its Jurisdiction
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to supervise the
implementation of state parties' obligations under the Covenant.1 However, the
Committee’s jurisdiction to receive and consider individual communications is not
inherent; it is contingent upon the state party's ratification of the First Optional
Protocol to the ICCPR.2 A state must be party to both the Covenant and the Protocol
for individuals under its jurisdiction to submit communications.3 As the Republic of
Qwanza has ratified both the ICCPR and the First Optional Protocol, it has accepted
the competence of the HRC to hear individual complaints. Thus, the Association for
Lawyers Against Death Penalty (ALADP), acting on behalf of Mr Ibo, may
theoretically lodge a communication before the Committee.
1.2 Standing to Bring a Communication
Article 1 of the First Optional Protocol stipulates that a communication must be
brought by an individual who claims to be a victim of a violation of the ICCPR rights.4
However, representatives acting on behalf of victims, such as organisations like
1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 28.
2
First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Preamble.
3
Mmatsie Mooki and Posche Makama, International Human Rights Law: Only Study Guide for LCP4807
(University of South Africa 2019) 24.
4
First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Article 1.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique Number:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
LEGAL OPINION ON BRINGING THE CASE OF MR TIMOTHY IBO BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (HRC)
This legal opinion provides a critical analysis of the procedural viability of taking Mr Ibo's
case before the HRC, assesses the merits of the case, identifies the specific rights allegedly
violated by the imposition of the death penalty, and outlines the remedies available through
the HRC. In doing so, the opinion draws upon the ICCPR, its Optional Protocols, and
relevant African regional instruments, offering authoritative references throughout.
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN BRINGING A CASE BEFORE THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1.1 The Human Rights Committee and Its Jurisdiction
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to supervise the implementation of state
parties' obligations under the Covenant.1 However, the Committee’s jurisdiction to receive
and consider individual communications is not inherent; it is contingent upon the state party's
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
LEGAL OPINION ON BRINGING THE CASE OF MR TIMOTHY IBO BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (HRC)
This legal opinion provides a critical analysis of the procedural viability of taking Mr
Ibo's case before the HRC, assesses the merits of the case, identifies the specific
rights allegedly violated by the imposition of the death penalty, and outlines the
remedies available through the HRC. In doing so, the opinion draws upon the
ICCPR, its Optional Protocols, and relevant African regional instruments, offering
authoritative references throughout.
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN BRINGING A CASE BEFORE THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
1.1 The Human Rights Committee and Its Jurisdiction
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to supervise the
implementation of state parties' obligations under the Covenant.1 However, the
Committee’s jurisdiction to receive and consider individual communications is not
inherent; it is contingent upon the state party's ratification of the First Optional
Protocol to the ICCPR.2 A state must be party to both the Covenant and the Protocol
for individuals under its jurisdiction to submit communications.3 As the Republic of
Qwanza has ratified both the ICCPR and the First Optional Protocol, it has accepted
the competence of the HRC to hear individual complaints. Thus, the Association for
Lawyers Against Death Penalty (ALADP), acting on behalf of Mr Ibo, may
theoretically lodge a communication before the Committee.
1.2 Standing to Bring a Communication
Article 1 of the First Optional Protocol stipulates that a communication must be
brought by an individual who claims to be a victim of a violation of the ICCPR rights.4
However, representatives acting on behalf of victims, such as organisations like
1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 28.
2
First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Preamble.
3
Mmatsie Mooki and Posche Makama, International Human Rights Law: Only Study Guide for LCP4807
(University of South Africa 2019) 24.
4
First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Article 1.
