ECRI 2nd report on Latvia (excerpt on ratifications), 2001

SECTION I: OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION

A. International Legal Instruments

1. Latvia has ratified different international legal instruments relevant in the field of combating racism and intolerance. ECRI welcomes the signature by Latvia of the Additional Protocol N°12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. ECRI understands that the preparatory work for ratification of this instrument is underway and encourages the Latvian authorities to complete this process and ratify the Protocol as soon as possible.

2. In its first report, ECRI recommended that Latvia ratify the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The authorities have stated that one of the obstacles to the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is the possible non-conformity of specific domestic legislation with the provisions contained in this convention, especially in the field of the use of languages. ECRI strongly urges the Latvian authorities to introduce the necessary changes in domestic legislation which would allow ratification by Latvia of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and to promptly ratify this instrument. ECRI furthermore reiterates its call for ratification by Latvia of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

3. ECRI notes the ratification by Latvia of the European Social Charter. ECRI
welcomes this development and encourages the Latvian authorities to consider ratification of the Revised European Social Charter. ECRI furthermore encourages the authorities to consider ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers.

4. In line with the recommendation formulated below2 to confer eligibility and voting rights to resident non-citizens in local elections, ECRI urges the Latvian authorities to ratify the Convention for the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level.

5. ECRI welcomes the signature by Latvia of the European Convention on
Nationality in May 2001. ECRI understands that ratification of this convention has now been submitted to the Parliament and hopes for a successful outcome of this process.

6. As already suggested in its first report, ECRI furthermore encourages the
Latvian authorities to make the declaration under Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which allows individual communications to be considered by the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.


Document data: CRI (2002) 21; adopted on 14.12.2001, published on 23.07.2002 Link: https://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia/16808b58b0 Also available in Latvian at http://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia-latvian-translation-/16808b58b2

ECRI 2nd report on Latvia (excerpt on statistics), 2001

SECTION I: OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION

(..)

L. Monitoring the situation in the country

57. In its first report, ECRI noted the work of the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. However, there appears to be a lack of reliable data concerning the relative situation of the various groups in society across a number of fields of social and economic life, and concerning the incidence of discrimination. ECRI considers that in order to evaluate the evolving situation of minority groups in Latvia, it is necessary to set up a system of data collection and monitoring, in order to uncover and remedy any problems, including differences related to direct or indirect discrimination.


Document data: CRI (2002) 21; adopted on 14.12.2001, published on 23.07.2002 Link: https://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia/16808b58b0 Also available in Latvian at http://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia-latvian-translation-/16808b58b2

ECRI 2nd report on Latvia (excerpt on integration), 2001

SECTION II: ISSUES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

(..)

P. Problems relating to the integration of the Russian-speaking population into the Latvian society

(..)

71. Although severe or violent manifestations of racism and intolerance do not appear to be prevalent in Latvia today, ECRI believes that the difficulties
experienced by one part of the population of Latvia and the imbalances between its situation and that of the rest of the population should be addressed and remedied as a matter of priority. This would not only improve the enjoyment of civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights by a substantial part of the Latvian population and counter its possible marginalisation and disaffectedness from mainstream Latvian society, but also avoid, in the long term, the creation of a climate where social tensions could arise. In this respect, ECRI considers the area of access to education to be one of the most potentially divisive and draws the attention of the Latvian authorities to the urgent need to address this issue along the lines suggested above.

72. In order to achieve this, ECRI stresses the importance of a clear public
recognition of the fact that Latvia is a multicultural society, of which all minority groups are an integral part. It should be made clear that, given the current imbalances in the situation of minority groups, and notably the Russian-speaking population, time and resources must be devoted to providing this part of Latvian society with increased opportunities, including for participation in the public life of the country. Such recognition should be reflected in consistent policies at legislative and other levels.

73. In this respect, ECRI welcomes the National Programme for Integration of the Society in Latvia, as an instrument which may potentially be very useful to promote participation of all persons in Latvian society as well as mutual integration among its different composing parts. The Programme, adopted by the Latvian Government in February 2001, sets out goals and lines of action in the following fields: civic participation and political integration; social and regional integration of society; education, language and culture; information. Although not specifically designed to address the situation of the Russian-speaking population nor that of other specific minority groups, the Latvian authorities have stressed that the Programme has been established to support the consolidation of a democratic civil society on the basis of common values such as Latvia’s independence and respect for human rights (including the right of persons belonging to minorities to preserve their identity), to coordinate the existing efforts aimed at integration of society in different areas, such as Latvian language training, naturalisation and education, as well as to establish the framework for new initiatives in these areas.

74. The Programme is to be implemented through projects designed by civil society organisations and the regions. ECRI notes that the necessary laws and regulations for the creation of the implementing machinery of the Programme have now been adopted. Thus, the Social Integration Foundation, through which government and donor money is to be channelled to support integrationrelated projects, has now been established and the relevant regulations governing the interaction among the different implementing agencies (the Foundation Council, the Committees and the Secretariat) have also been adopted.

75. ECRI expresses the hope that a high level of priority will be attributed to
projects in the areas highlighted in this Section. ECRI is aware that Ministries, municipalities and non-governmental organisations are to be equally represented in the Foundation Council, which is the body responsible for the administration of the Foundation and for the final approval of any integration projects upon recommendations made by the different Committees. ECRI strongly encourages the Latvian authorities to ensure that minority groups are represented in the non-governmental component of the Foundation Council and, more generally, that they are thoroughly involved in the implementation of the Programme, both at the level of supervision and at the level of organisations receiving funds for projects. ECRI encourages the Latvian authorities in their efforts to integrate both ethnic Latvians and minority groups into one society, and hopes that this issue will be given the necessary political support as well as adequate resources. ECRI recognises that such a programme on the part of Government calls for a corresponding commitment to its goals and objectives and to the cohesion and integration of Latvian society from all sections of the community, irrespective of their origin.


Document data: CRI (2002) 21; adopted on 14.12.2001, published on 23.07.2002 Link: https://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia/16808b58b0 Also available in Latvian at http://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia-latvian-translation-/16808b58b2

ECRI 2nd report on Latvia (excerpt on culture), 2001

SECTION I: OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION

(..)

B. Constitutional provisions and other basic provisions

(..)

Law on the Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural Autonomy of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups

22. The 1991 Law “on the Unrestricted Development and Right to Cultural
Autonomy of Latvia’s National and Ethnic Groups” reaffirms the guarantee of equal human rights, and equal right to work and wages, for all residents of Latvia, irrespective of their ethnicity (Articles 1 and 3), and declares punishable any actions directed towards discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin or promotion of ethnic superiority or hatred (Article 16). According to the Law, permanent residents are guaranteed the right to establish their own national associations, whose functioning and development the Latvian Government promotes.

23. ECRI notes that, in 2001, the Latvian authorities have allocated 14,500 Lats for different national cultural associations and 10,000 Lats to support the functioning of an Association for Cultural Societies.


Document data: CRI (2002) 21; adopted on 14.12.2001, published on 23.07.2002 Link: https://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia/16808b58b0 Also available in Latvian at http://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-latvia-latvian-translation-/16808b58b2

HRC views in Ignatane v. Latvia, 2001

Communication No. 884/1999

Submitted by: Ms. Antonina Ignatane (represented by counsel, Ms. Tatyana Zhdanok)

Alleged victim: The author

State party: Latvia

Date of communication: 17 May 1998 (initial submission)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 25 July 2001,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 884/1999 submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Ms. Antonina Ignatane under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and the State party,

Adopts the following:

Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol

1.1 The author of the communication is Ms. Antonina Ignatane, a Latvian citizen of Russian origin and a teacher, born in Riga on 21 February 1943. She claims to be the victim of violations of articles 2 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Latvia. The author is represented by counsel.

1.2 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force for Latvia on 14 July 1992, and the Optional Protocol on 22 September 1994.

The facts as submitted by the author

2.1 At the time of the events in question, Ms. Ignatane was a teacher in Riga. In 1993, she had appeared before a certification board to take a Latvian language test and had subsequently been awarded a language aptitude certificate stating that she had level 3 proficiency (the highest level).

2.2 In 1997, the author stood for local elections to be held on 9 March 1997, as a candidate of the Movement of Social Justice and Equal Rights in Latvia list. On 11 February 1997, she was struck off the list by decision of the Riga Election Commission, on the basis of an opinion issued by the State Language Board (SLB) to the effect that she did not have the required proficiency in the official language.

2.3 On 17 February 1997, the author filed a complaint with the Central District Court concerning the Election Commission’s decision, which she considered illegal. The Court transferred the case automatically to the Riga’s Circuit Court, which dismissed the case on 25 February, with immediate effect.

2.4 On 4 March 1997, Ms. Ignatane filed a petition against the decision of 25 February with the President of the Civil Division of the Latvian Supreme Court. In a letter dated 8 April 1997, the Supreme Court refused to act on the petition.

2.5 The author had also filed a case with the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 4 March 1997. Having considered the petition, the Public Prosecutor’s Office stated on 22 April 1997 that there were no grounds to act on the complaint and that the decision in question had been taken with due regard to the law and did not violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2.6 The author has submitted to the Committee a translation of articles 9, 17 and 22 of the Law on Elections to Town Councils and Municipal Councils, of 13 January 1994. Article 9 of the Law lists the categories of people who may not stand for local elections. According to article 9, paragraph 7, no one who does not have level 3 (higher) proficiency in the State language may stand for election. According to article 17, if anyone standing for election is not a graduate of a school in which Latvian is the language of instruction, a copy of his or her language aptitude certificate showing higher level (3) proficiency in the State language must be attached to the “candidate’s application”. The author’s counsel has explained that the copy of the certificate is required to enable SLB to check its authenticity, not its validity.

2.7 According to article 22, only the Election Commission registering a list of candidates is competent to alter the list, and then only:

(1) By striking a candidate from the list if: …

(b) The conditions mentioned under article 9 of the present Law are applicable to the candidate, …, and, in cases covered by paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of the present article, a candidate may be struck off the list on the basis of an opinion from the relevant institution or by court decision.
In the case of a candidate who: …
(8) Does not meet the requirements corresponding to the higher level (3) of language proficiency in the State language, that fact must be certified by an opinion of the SLB.

2.8 Lastly, Ms. Ignatane recalls that, according to statements made by the SLB at the time of the case hearings, the certification board in the Ministry of Education had received complaints about her proficiency in Latvian. It so happens, the author says, that it was just that Ministry that, in 1996, had been involved in a widely publicized controversy surrounding the closure of No. 9 secondary school in Riga, where she was the head teacher. The school was a Russian-language school and its closure had had a very bad effect on the Russian minority in Latvia.

The complaint

3. The author claims that, by depriving her of the opportunity to stand for the local elections, Latvia violated articles 2 and 25 of the Covenant.

The State party’s observations

4.1 In its observations of 28 April 2000, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication. It claims that the author has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to her.

4.2 The State party also submits that the author does not challenge the conclusions of the State Language Board that her proficiency in Latvian is not of the level required in order to stand for elections (level 3), but only the legality of the Election Commission’s decision to strike her off the list of candidates. The State party considers that the court rulings are lawful and legitimate and in full accordance with Latvian law and, in particular, with article 9, paragraph 7, and article 22, paragraph 8, of the Law on Elections to Town Councils and Municipal Councils.

4.3 The State party is of the view that the provisions of the aforementioned Law comply with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as provided in the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 25 on article 25, which states that “any conditions which apply to the exercise of the rights protected by article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria”. According to the State party, participation in public affairs requires a high level of proficiency in the State language and such a precondition is reasonable and based on objective criteria, which are set forth in the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language. The State party says that, according to those regulations, level 3 proficiency in the State language is required for several categories of persons, including elected representatives. The highest level (level 3) shows an ability to speak the official language fluently, to understand texts chosen at random and to draft texts in the official language, in connection with his or her official duties.

4.4 The State party goes on to say that, as regards the plaintiff’s real proficiency in the State language, there is extensive information provided in the court ruling, which states that, if there are complaints about proficiency in the State language, an examination is carried out in order to establish whether the real language proficiency corresponds to the level attested by the certificate. In this particular case, the State party claims that complaints had been received by the Ministry of Education and Science concerning the plaintiff’s proficiency in Latvian, although it does not elaborate further or provide any evidence. On 5 February 1997, an examination was carried out which showed that her language proficiency did not meet the requirements of level 3. The Court subsequently referred to the material evidence (a copy of the examination, with the corrections) that the SLB had provided in support of the results of the examination concerning Ms. Ignatane’s proficiency in Latvian.

4.5 The examination results served as a basis for barring the plaintiff from the list of candidates for the elections, in accordance with the law. The legality of the act had subsequently been confirmed by the Supreme Court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

4.6 Regarding the alleged contradiction between the author’s certificate and the SLB’s conclusions, the State party notes that the SLB’s conclusions relate only to the issue of the candidate’s eligibility and in no way either imply the automatic invalidation of the certificate or may be used as a basis for revising its appropriateness, unless the holder of the certificate so wishes.

4.7 The State party argues that the author could have taken two further measures. In the first place, Ms. Ignatane could have asked for another language examination, as the SLB indicated during the hearings. The purpose of such an examination would have been to verify the appropriateness of the certificate held by Ms. Ignatane. Secondly, the author could have taken legal action on the basis of the discrepancy between her certificate and the SLB’s conclusions with regard to her electoral qualification, which would have led the Court to order another examination in order to verify the appropriateness of the certificate.

4.8 Since none of these possibilities was used by the author, the State party argues that not all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The State party also dismisses the allegation of discrimination against the author on the basis of her political convictions, since all the other members of the same list were accepted as candidates in the elections.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations

5.1 In comments dated 22 September 2000, counsel addresses the State party’s argument that Ms. Ignatane did not challenge the conclusions of the State Language Board that she did not have the highest level of proficiency in Latvian, but challenged the legality of the Election Commission’s decision to strike her off the list of candidates. Counsel acknowledges that Ms. Ignatane certainly challenged the legality of the Electoral Commission’s decision, but states that the only ground for that decision was the SLB’s conclusion that her proficiency in Latvian did not meet the requirement for the highest level of aptitude. Therefore, according to counsel, the author challenged the legality of the decision by the Election Commission to strike her name from the list of election candidates, which was taken on the basis of the SLB’s conclusion.

5.2 Counsel points out that the phrasing used by the State party – “the required third (highest) level to stand for election” – is open to misinterpretation. According to counsel, Latvian electoral law has no requirement for any special level of proficiency in the State language purely in order to stand for election; it is only the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language for employment that indicate the three levels required for various positions and professions, and the language aptitude certificate showing level 1, 2 or 3 proficiency in the State language is general in scope.

5.3 With regard to the State party’s assertion that the relevant electoral law complies with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as provided in the General Comment on article 25, counsel states that the conditions contained in article 9, paragraph 7, and article 22, paragraph 8, of the Law in question are not based on objective and reasonable criteria, as required by the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on non-discrimination.

5.4 According to article 9, paragraph 7, of the Law, persons whose proficiency in the State language does not meet the requirements of the highest level (level 3) may not be nominated as candidates for local council elections and may not be elected to councils. According to article 22, paragraph 8, a candidate may be struck off the list if his or her language skills do not meet the requirements of proficiency level 3 in the State language, on the basis of an opinion of the State Language Board. According to counsel, in practice, that provision is open to a practically infinite range of interpretations and opens the door to totally discretionary and arbitrary decisions.

5.5 Counsel then addresses the State party’s point that an election candidate is given a language examination if complaints have been received. If no complaints have been received, the SLB should submit opinions on every candidate, in the form of an authentication of the copy of each candidate’s Latvian language aptitude certificate. Counsel maintains that an unsupported statement that complaints had been made about a candidate and the results of the subsequent examination, which was conducted by a single examiner, a senior inspector at the State Language Inspectorate, cannot be described as objective criteria. The full powers given to a senior inspector are not commensurate with the consequences they give rise to, i.e. the disqualification of an election candidate. Such an approach to the verification of proficiency in the State language makes it possible, if need be, to disqualify all candidates representing a minority.

5.6 Counsel goes on to describe the conditions in which the examination was carried out. Ms. Ignatane was at work, when the German lesson she was giving to a class of schoolchildren was interrupted and she was required to do a written exercise in Latvian. The examination was carried out by an inspector in the presence of two witnesses, who were teachers employed at the same school. Given the circumstances, counsel contends, the spelling mistakes and other errors that were used as evidence of the author’s limited proficiency in Latvian should not be taken into account.

5.7 In the third place, with reference to the State party’s assertion that participation in public affairs requires a high level of proficiency in the State language and that such a precondition is reasonable and based on objective criteria set forth in the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language, counsel contends that such a precondition for standing in local elections is not reasonable. There are no other preconditions for candidates in general, for example with regard to level of education or professional skills. The fact that the only precondition relates to proficiency in Latvian means, according to counsel, that the rights to vote and to be elected are not respected and guaranteed to all individuals with no distinction on the grounds of their language status. Counsel asserts that, for around 40 per cent of the population of Latvia, Latvian is not the mother tongue.

5.8 According to counsel, this precondition of a high level of proficiency in Latvian for participation in local elections is not based on objective criteria. However, that does not mean that the author is of the opinion that the criteria set forth in the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language are not objective. Simply, the latter criteria are not applied in the provision (in article 22, paragraph 8, of the Law) that a candidate may be struck off the list if he or she does not meet the requirements of the highest level (level 3) of proficiency in Latvian, and that this must be certified by an opinion of the SLB. Counsel states that, according to the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language, language proficiency is certified by a special Certification Commission made up of at least five language specialists. The regulations describe in detail the testing and certification procedure, thereby ensuring its objectivity and reliability. Level 1, 2 and 3 certificates are valid for an unlimited period. According to article 17 of the Law, candidates who have not obtained their secondary school diploma from a school in which Latvian is the language of instruction must submit a copy of their level 3 certificate to the Election Commission. The author had submitted such a copy to the Riga Election Commission. Counsel maintains that the SLB opinion, issued on the basis of an ad hoc examination conducted by a single inspector from the State Language Inspectorate following complaints allegedly received by the Ministry of Education, was not consistent with the requirements of the regulations on the certification of proficiency in the State language. Moreover, the State party acknowledges that the SLB opinion relates only to the issue of eligibility and in no way either implies the automatic invalidation of the certificate or may be used as a basis for revising its appropriateness.

5.9 Fourth and last, counsel takes up the State party’s contention that all domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Counsel recalls that the court judgement of 25 February 1997 confirming the Riga Election Commission’s decision of 11 February 1997 was final and entered into force with immediate effect. The special procedure available for appealing such decisions is in fact the procedure that the author followed.

5.10 Counsel goes on to point out that remedies should not only be adequate and sufficient, but should also make it possible in practice to obtain the re-establishment of the situation in question. The remedy exhausted by the author – the special procedure for appealing the Election Commission’s decision – was the only remedy that would have made it possible to achieve the objective of the complaint, namely, to allow the author to stand in the Riga City Council elections in 1997 by restoring her name to the electoral list.

5.11 Counsel maintains that the State party contradicts itself when it says, on the one hand, that it cannot agree that domestic remedies have been exhausted, since neither of the two possible remedies it mentions for verifying the appropriateness of the author’s certificate has been used, and, on the other hand, that, according to the communication, the author challenges the legality of striking her off the list of candidates but not the SLB’s opinion that her proficiency in Latvian was not of the required level 3. In any case, each of the procedures mentioned by the State party to verify the appropriateness of the author’s certificate takes several months at least and therefore would not have allowed the author to stand in the 1997 elections. In that regard, counsel recalls that the decision to bar the author was taken 26 days before the elections. Time constraints precluded any effort on the author’s part to avail herself subsequently of any other legal remedy.

The Committee’s deliberations concerning admissibility

6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6.2 The Committee observes that the State party contests the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, since the author did not contest the SLB’s conclusion that her knowledge of the language was not of the required standard, but contested the Election Commission’s decision to strike her off the list. The Committee cannot agree with the State party’s argument that this shows that the author had not exhausted the available remedies, since at the time the author was in possession of a valid, legally issued certificate demonstrating her knowledge of the official language to the required standard, which the State party itself does not contest.

6.3 The Committee also notes counsel’s arguments that the remedies listed by the State party are not effective remedies and that the State party has not proved that they are effective or indeed contested counsel’s arguments. The Committee also takes account of counsel’s comment that the remedies listed by the State party take several months to reach a conclusion in any case and to have exhausted them would have meant that the author would not have been able to stand in the elections. The Committee notes that counsel’s reactions were brought to the attention of the State party, but that the latter did not respond. Under the circumstances, the Committee considers that there is no impediment to the admissibility of the communication.

6.4 The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and decides to proceed to an examination of the case on its merits, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol.

Examination of the merits

7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it in writing by the parties, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.

7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the rights of the author under articles 2 and 25 were violated by not allowing her to stand as candidate for the local elections held in March 1997.

7.3 According to the State party participation in public affairs requires a high level of proficiency in the State language and a language requirement for standing as a candidate in elections is hence reasonable and objective. The Committee notes that article 25 secures to every citizen the right and the opportunity to be elected at genuine periodic elections without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2, including language.

7.4 The Committee notes that, in this case, the decision of a single inspector, taken a few days before the elections and contradicting a language aptitude certificate issued some years earlier, for an unlimited period, by a board of Latvian language specialists, was enough for the Election Commission to decide to strike the author off the list of candidates for the municipal elections. The Committee notes that the State party does not contest the validity of the certificate as it relates to the author’s professional position, but argues on the basis of the results of the inspector’s review in the matter of the author’s eligibility. The Committee also notes that the State party has not contested counsel’s argument that Latvian law does not provide for separate levels of proficiency in the official language in order to stand for election, but applies the standards and certification used in other instances. The results of the review led to the author’s being prevented from exercising her right to participate in public life in conformity with article 25 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the first examination, in 1993, was conducted in accordance with formal requirements and was assessed by five experts, whereas the 1997 review was conducted in an ad hoc manner and assessed by a single individual. The annulment of the author’s candidacy pursuant to a review that was not based on objective criteria and which the State party has not demonstrated to be procedurally correct is not compatible with the State party’s obligations under article 25 of the Covenant.

7.5 The Committee concludes that Mrs. Ignatane has suffered specific injury in being prevented from standing for the local elections in the city of Riga in 1997, because of having been struck off the list of candidates on the basis of insufficient proficiency in the official language. The Human Rights Committee considers that the author is a victim of a violation of article 25, in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant

8. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Ms. Ignatane with an effective remedy. It is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future.

8. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. In addition, it requests the State party to publish the Committee’s Views.


Document data: CCPR/C/72/D/884/1999, adopted 25.07.2001 Links: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/884-1999.html http://www.bayefsky.com/html/102_latvia884.php https://www.refworld.org/cases,HRC,3f588ef83.html Also available in Russian http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/russian/hrcommittee/Rview884sess72.html and in Latvian http://at.gov.lv/files/uploads/files/docs/ect_nolemumi/ano-ignatane.doc 

Publisher’s note: the relevant language requirements for candidates have been abolished in 2002, but re-emerged in a different form later. Now, the candidates are not subject to language checks, but elected MPs and local councilors are. This has caused concern by the FCNM Advisory Committee in its third opinion on Latvia.