LCP4807
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
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
Terms of use
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the
By making use of this document you agree to:
International Covenant on Use Civil
this and Political
document Rights
as a guide (ICCPR)
for learning, to and
comparison supervise
reference the
purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, or and
reference, misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
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 ALADP, may submit communications provided they can demonstrate either
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. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
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
Terms of use
The Human Rights Committee (HRC) was established under Article 28 of the
By making use of this document you agree to:
International Covenant on Use Civil
this and Political
document Rights
as a guide (ICCPR)
for learning, to and
comparison supervise
reference the
purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, or and
reference, misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
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 ALADP, may submit communications provided they can demonstrate either
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. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
