User talk:Smlombardi/Archive1

User_talk:Smlombardi

Archive 1 [1][2][3] [4]: old Drafts and Sandbox

Diff to En.Wikipedia tips from User: Atama [[5]]

Three editors helped

Three editors helped with the corrections to Super-teams, but more attacked me personally while I was in the process of making requested edits. It is the personal attacks that I object to . . . not making corrections. Stmullin (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stmullin: I can understand that. Can you be more specific about the attacks? If these were explicit personal attacks those are not allowed, but if they were criticisms about your behavior then that is not the same as an attack. I'd like to know more about these, to either avoid misunderstandings or possibly to warn people against making personal insults against you. -- Atama頭 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 and Nil Einne attacked my character rather make an effort to correctly define the problem. The problem was that I did not do a block quote correctly, not that I would put Wikipedia in jeopardy. I thought that I had done the quote correctly and since I could no longer view the article after deletion . . . I was not aware of the indent problem until Writ Keeper pointed out that the indentation did not appear on the original article. The constant threats and bombarding of templates made the problem worse not better. Stmullin (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please make Gaijin42 go away? He is still hounding me about this. Stmullin (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was turned into a redirect, it wasn't deleted, so the history is available to anyone who wants to view it. The history can be viewed here, and you can also get to it by going to Super-team, then look at the top of the High-performance teams article (right under the title) where it says (Redirected from Super-team) and click on the Super-team link there, it will take you to the redirect page where you can click on the "history" link. That's just a tip to get to a redirect page without being redirected.

But I'm still trying to figure out where the attacks occurred... Do you know how to do diffs? Help:Diff shows you how to make a diff for a page so you can make a permanent link to a person's edit (which will persist even after that edit is deleted, or archived, or otherwise changed) and will show exactly how and where a person made an edit. I see that Gaijin42 gave a warning on your talk page, which you replied by saying, "I have filed for arbitration against you . . . you are out of control." I'll say that the warning was correct... You aren't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags for a page you created yourself and doing so after being warned can be considered disruptive. So your response seemed to be unwarranted there.

If you are talking about the discussion at the administrators' incident noticeboard, I'm trying to understand what is an attack there. Please indicate what Gaijin42 and Nil Einne said that you consider to be a personal attack against you, because I'm not seeing it.

Now, what I see is that what you did, while still a copyright violation, was not intentional. You were following the APA style which is a common and widely-respected writing style for academics. But our copyright policy has to account for situations not necessarily covered by that style, and so you're not necessarily safe in following it, what's important is what Wikipedia policy suggests you do. And please forgive the other editors for not suggesting that a block quote would be satisfactory; they didn't realize at the time that it was a quote so couldn't have made the suggestion at the time. I think that you're making your best efforts here, but please understand that the writing conventions you might have learned elsewhere may conflict with what Wikipedia has written in its guidelines and policies, and even if it's considered best practices elsewhere everyone has to follow what has been established here by community consensus (along with what has been mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation). Other editors aren't "wrong" because they contradict what you've learned elsewhere, and this is especially true when you're working with editors who have been here many years (even longer than myself). -- Atama頭 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to do diffs and I hope I never need to do that again. I write articles and have written many articles successfully in the past. I thought that I had indented the passage in question . . . I should have used a block quote . . . I know that now but the predators will not cease and desist . . . honestly, Gaijin42, is completely out of control. I can correct my mistakes once I understand the error but Gaijin42 was clueless . . . please stop Gaijin42 from harassing people. The other editor worked with me to find a solution but Gaijin42 just attacked repeatedly and Nil Einne enabled him. Stmullin (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked through your editing history, and yes you've made some good article contributions (at least to me, I'm honestly not great at it,most of my contributions here are in other, arguably less-important areas). But you need to stop overreacting here. Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you're going to have to work with other editors. Sometimes they are going to disagree with you, and you can't take disagreements as attacks. This is not a place where you can write an article and be done; people are going to change your article,they may object to what you wrote and how you wrote it, and they may even want to delete what you wrote. In order to successfully manage the conflicts that will inevitably come up, you must do two things (and neither of those things is to ask people to leave you alone or tell them that they're flat-out "wrong" without explanation). You need to be able to treat other editors with civility to avoid misunderstandings and to avoid escalating a simple disagreement into a conduct dispute, and you need to be able to defend your actions with a combination of common sense and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All of that is essential to being able to participate constructively on Wikipedia. I'd like to help you avoid running into conflict because you look to have a good background in writing and so you can be a big benefit to the project here, but thatneeds to be combined with an understanding of Wikipedia culture and learning the ropes, and that will only come with experience, patience, and the ability to occasionally accept constructive criticism. -- Atama頭 23:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that my willingness to make repeated revisions over a 2 year span writing for Wikipedia does shows acceptance of constructive criticism. I think that my communications with you, Writ Keeper, and Hell in a Bucket resulted in a positive outcome and was a collaborative effort. Dealing with loose cannons like KURU and Gaijin42 was neither constructive or helpful and at times was slanderous. Nil Einne was just as clueless as KURU and Gaijin42. I do not believe that those three are effective administrators . . . they make problems worse not better. Stmullin (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're not a hopeless case, no, and that is why I'm taking the time to try to give you a little guidance here. But I'll assure you, that neither Kuru nor Gaijin42 are loose cannons, nor was Nil Einne. They may not have tried to spend so much one-on-one time with you as I have, but the actions they all have done were correct, and none of it was slanderous (and be careful about words like "slander" or "libel", phrases that even approach legal threats are taken very seriously here). Unfortunately, the contributions you've made for the past couple of years have been done without a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policy on copyrights, and as a result people are going to have to go through all of your articles to check for mistakes you've made in that regard. None of that it is in any way an attack on you, rather it's an attempt to protect both this project and anyone who mirrors or otherwise reuses information written on this project. There is already a discussion on the administrators' incidents noticeboard regarding your contribution, and there will likely be a copyright investigation begun as a result. You are likely going to receive a lot more corrections as to what you've written, so I urge you to please take these as attempts to help you follow policy as you make further contributions, and not as attempts to personally attack you or denigrate your contributions here. -- Atama頭 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with Diannaa before on the Stewart Hase image so I am not at all offended. S/he found 2 Errors that were mine and I was able to correct one of those errors but haven't a clue about paraphrasing the information on Triangle Town Center (see my talk page) . . . trivia is trivia, how do I convey the Triangle Town Center information and have it make sense? Stmullin (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC) The Triangle Town Center article is now corrected. I deleted most of the passage which sounded very commercial. Stmullin (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all awesome, I'm glad to hear it. I'll try to help if you have any more questions or problems. -- Atama頭 03:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Added for quick referenceSmlombardi (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: practice the transfer of an article from http://en.wikipedia.org

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is sometimes called the ICCPR. The ICCPR was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966. The signers of this document agree to respect the civil and political rights (the Human rights) of all people. These rights include right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, rights to due process, and a fair trial.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee reviews regular reports on how well the ICCPR is performing. The United Nations Human Rights Committee meets three times per year in Geneva. The United Nations Human Rights Committee is part of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Summary

The following section summarizes the text of the agreement:

Part 1 (Article 1) recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. Self-determining people make their own choices about their political associations; preserve their social, cultural, and individual identity; and may acquire or dispose of resources to manage their economic goals. This provision makes sure that all people are not denied food, shelter, or other things needed for a healthy life. In addition, the agreement promises that the people in charge respect the right of individuals to be self-determined.

Part 2 (Articles 2 – 5) requires that the people in charge make rules that help this agreement to be successful including providing legal remedy when rules are not upheld. The rules are the same for everyone of both genders; every race; of every color; of every language; of every religion; of every political, national, or social division; without regard to property ownership, birth order or status.

Part 3 (Articles 6 – 27) lists the rights themselves. These include rights to

• physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and 8);
• liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11);
• procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
• individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech, association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy (Articles 12, 13, 17 – 24);
• prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
• political participation, including the right to join a political party and the right to vote (Article 25);
• Non-discrimination, minority rights and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27).

Many of these rights include specific actions which must be undertaken to realize them.

Part 4 (Articles 28 – 45) governs the establishment and operation of the Human Rights Committee and the reporting and monitoring of the Covenant. It also allows parties to recognize the competence of the Committee to resolve disputes between parties on the implementation of the Covenant (Articles 41 and 42).

Part 5 (Articles 46 – 47) clarifies that the Covenant shall not be interpreted as interfering with the operation of the United Nations or "the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources".

Part 6 (Articles 48 – 53) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Covenant.

Core provisions

Rights to physical integrity

Main articles: Right to life, Torture, and Slavery

Article 6 of the Covenant recognizes the individual's "inherent right to life" and requires it to be protected by law. It is a "supreme right" from which no derogation can be permitted, and must be interpreted widely. It therefore requires parties to take positive measures to reduce infant mortality and increase life expectancy, as well as forbidding arbitrary killings by security forces.

While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious crimes" and forbids it to be used on children and pregnant women or in a manner contrary to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The UN Human Rights Committee interprets the Article as "strongly suggest[ing] that abolition is desirable", and regards any progress towards abolition of the death penalty as advancing this right. The Second Optional Protocol commits its signatories to the abolition of the death penalty within their borders.

Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. As with Article 6, it cannot be derogated from under any circumstances. The article is now interpreted to impose similar obligations to those required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, including not just prohibition of torture, but active measures to prevent its use and a prohibition on refoulement. In response to Nazi human experimentation during WW2 this article explicitly includes a prohibition on medical and scientific experimentation without consent.

Article 8 prohibits slavery and enforced servitude in all situations. The article also prohibits forced labour, with exceptions for criminal punishment, military service and civil obligations.

Liberty and security of person

See the main article: Habeas corpus

Article 9 recognizes the rights to liberty and security of the person. It prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, requires any deprivation of liberty to be according to law, and obliges parties to allow those deprived of their liberty to challenge their imprisonment through the courts. These provisions apply not just to those imprisoned as part of the criminal process, but also to those detained due to mental illness, drug addiction, or for educational or immigration purposes.

Articles 9.3 and 9.4 impose procedural safeguards around arrest, requiring anyone arrested to be promptly informed of the charges against them, and to be brought promptly before a judge. It also restricts the use of pre-trial detention, requiring it to be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and for as short a period of time as possible.

Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity. This applies not just to prisoners, but also to those detained for immigration purposes or psychiatric care. The right complements the Article 7 prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The article also imposes specific obligations around criminal justice, requiring prisoners in pretrial detention to be separated from convicted prisoners, and children to be separated from adults. It requires prisons to be focused on reform and rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Article 11 prohibits the use of imprisonment as a punishment for breach of contract.

Procedural fairness and rights of the accused

Main articles: Rights of the accused and Right to a fair trial

Article 14 recognizes and protects a right to justice and a fair trial. Article 14.1 establishes the ground rules: everyone must be equal before the courts, and any hearing must take place in open court before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, with any judgment or ruling made public. Closed hearings are only permitted for reasons of privacy, justice, or national security, and judgments may only be suppressed in divorce cases or to protect the interests of children. These obligations apply to both criminal and civil hearings, and to all courts and tribunals.

The rest of the article imposes specific and detailed obligations around the process of criminal trials in order to protect the rights of the accused and the right to a fair trial. It establishes the Presumption of innocence and forbids double jeopardy. It requires that those convicted of a crime be allowed to appeal to a higher tribunal, and requires victims of a Miscarriage of justice to be compensated. It establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, against self-incrimination, and for the accused to be present and call and examine witnesses.

Article 15 prohibits prosecutions under Ex post facto law and the imposition of retrospective criminal penalties, and requires the imposition of the lesser penalty where criminal sentences have changed between the offence and conviction. But except the criminal according to general principles of law recognized by international community. (jus cogens)

Article 16 requires states to recognize everyone as a person before the law.

Individual liberties

Main articles: Freedom of movement, Freedom of religion, Freedom of thought, Freedom of speech, Freedom of assembly, and Freedom of association

Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and to leave a country. These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state, and can be restricted only where necessary to protect national security, public order or health, and the rights and freedoms of others. The article also recognises a right of people to enter their own country. The Human Rights Committee interprets this right broadly as applying not just to citizens, but also to those stripped of or denied their nationality. They also regard it as near-absolute; "there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own country could be reasonable".

Article 13 forbids the arbitrary expulsion of resident aliens and requires such decisions to be able to be appealed and reviewed.

Article 17 mandates the right of privacy. This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity, thereby nullifying prohibitions on homosexual behaviour, however, the wording of this covenant's marriage right (Article 23) excludes the extrapolation of a same-sex marriage right from this provision. Article 17 also protects people against unlawful attacks to their honor and reputation. Article 17 (2) grants the protection of the Law against such attacks

Article 18 mandates freedom of religion.

Article 19 mandates freedom of expression.

Article 20 mandates sanctions against inciting hatred.

Articles 21 and 22 mandate freedom of association. These provisions guarantee the right to freedom of association, the right to trade unions and also defines the International Labour Organisation.

Article 23 mandates the right of marriage. The wording of this provision neither requires nor prohibits same-sex marriage.

Article 24 mandates special protection, the right to a name, and the right to a nationality for every child.

Article 27 mandates the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minority to enjoy their own culture, to profess their own religion, and to use their own language.

Political rights

Article 3 provides an accessory non-discrimination principle. Accessory in the way that it cannot be used independently and can only be relied upon in relation to another right protected by the ICCPR.

In contrast, Article 26 contains a revolutionary norm by providing an autonomous equality principle which is not dependent upon another right under the convention being infringed. This has the effect of widening the scope of the non-discrimination principle beyond the scope of ICCPR.

Optional protocols

There are two Optional Protocols to the Covenant. The First Optional Protocol establishes an individual complaints mechanism, allowing individuals to complain to the Human Rights Committee about violations of the Covenant. This has led to the creation of a complex jurisprudence on the interpretation and implementation of the Covenant. As of July 2013, the First Optional Protocol has 114 parties.

The Second Optional Protocol abolishes the death penalty; however, countries were permitted to make a reservation allowing for use of death penalty for the most serious crimes of a military nature, committed during wartime. As of July 2013, the Second Optional Protocol had 77 parties.

Reservations

A number of parties have made reservations and interpretative declarations to their application of the Covenant.

Argentina will apply the fair trial rights guaranteed in its constitution to the prosecution of those accused of violating the general law of nations.

Australia reserves the right to progressively implement the prison standards of Article 10, to compensate for miscarriages of justice by administrative means rather than through the courts, and interprets the prohibition on racial incitement as being subject to the freedoms of expression, association and assembly. It also declares that its implementation will be effected at each level of its federal system.

Austria reserves the right to continue to exile members of the House of Habsburg, and limits the rights of the accused and the right to a fair trial to those already existing in its legal system.

Bahamas, due to problems with implementation, reserves the right not to compensate for miscarriages of justice.

Bahrain interprets Articles 3 (no sexual discrimination), 18 (freedom of religion) and 23 (family rights) within the context of Islamic Sharia law.

Bangladesh reserves the right to try people in absentia where they are fugitives from justice and declares that resource constraints mean that it cannot necessarily segregate prisons or provide counsel for accused persons.

Barbados reserves the right not to provide free counsel for accused persons due to resource constraints.

Belgium interprets the freedoms of speech, assembly and association in a manner consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. It does not consider itself obliged to ban war propaganda as required by Article 20, and interprets that article in light of the freedom of expression in the UDHR.

Belize reserves the right not to compensate for miscarriages of justice, due to problems with implementation, and does not plan to provide free legal counsel for the same reasons as above. It also refuses to ensure the right to free travel at any time, due to a law requiring those travelling abroad to provide tax clearance certificates.

Congo, as per the Congolese Code of Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Financial Procedure, in matters of private law, decisions or orders emanating from conciliation proceedings may be enforced through imprisonment for debt.

Denmark reserves the right to exclude the press and the public from trials as per its own laws. Reservation is further made to Article 20, paragraph 1. This reservation is in accordance with the vote cast by Denmark in the XVI General Assembly of the United Nations in 1961 when the Danish Delegation, referring to the preceding article concerning freedom of expression, voted against the prohibition against propaganda for war.

Gambia, as per its constitution, will provide free legal assistance for accused persons charged with capital offenses only.

The United States has made reservations that none of the articles should restrict the right of free speech and association; that the US government may impose capital punishment on any person other than a pregnant woman, including persons below the age of 18; that "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment" refers to those treatments or punishments prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution; that Paragraph 1, Article 15 will not apply; and that, notwithstanding paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Article 10 and paragraph 4 of Article 14, the US government may treat juveniles as adults, and accept volunteers to the military prior to the age of 18. The United States also submitted five "understandings", and four "declarations".

National implementation and effects

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has 167 states parties, 67 by signature and ratification, and the remainder by accession or succession. Another five states have signed but have yet to ratify the treaty.

Australia

The Covenant is not directly enforceable in Australia, however its provisions support a number of domestic laws which confer enforceable rights on individuals. For example, Article 17 of the Convention has been implemented by the Australian Privacy Act 1988. Likewise, the Covenant’s equality and anti-discrimination provisions support the federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Finally, the Covenant is one of the major sources of 'human rights' listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. This law requires most new legislation and administrative instruments (e.g. delegated/subordinate legislation) to be tabled in parliament with a statement outlining the proposed law's compatibility with the listed human rights A Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinises all new legislation and statements of compatibility. The findings of the Joint Committee are not legally binding.

Legislation also exists which establishes the Australian Human Rights Commission which allows the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to examine enacted legislation (to suggest remedial enactments), its administration (to suggest avoidance of practices) and general compliance with the covenant which is schedule to the AHRC legislation.

In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory the Convention can be used by a plaintiff or defendant who invokes those jurisdiction's human rights charters . While the Convention cannot be used to overturn a Victorian or ACT law, a Court can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' which requires the relevant Attorney-General to respond in Parliament within a set time period. Courts in Victoria and the ACT are also directed by the legislation to interpret the law in such a way as to give effect to a human right, and new legislation and subordinate legislation must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility. Efforts to implement a similar Charter at the National level have been frustrated and Australia's Constitution may prevent conferring the 'declaration' power on federal judges.

Ireland

Ireland's use of Special Criminal Courts where juries are replaced by judges and other special procedures apply has been found to violate the treaty.

New Zealand

While New Zealand has not incorporated the ICCPR into law, it took measures to give effect to many of the rights contained within it by passing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990.

United States

Reservations, understandings, and declarations

The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations. Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect. Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing", and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."

Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation, no private right of action within the U.S. judicial system is created by ratification.

As a reservation that is "incompatible with the object and purpose" of a treaty is void as a matter of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and international law, there is some issue as to whether the non-self-execution declaration is even legal under domestic law.

Prominent critics in the human rights community, such as Prof. Louis Henkin (non-self-execution declaration incompatible with the Supremacy Clause) and Prof. Jordan Paust ("Rarely has a treaty been so abused") have denounced the United States' ratification subject to the non-self-execution declaration as a blatant fraud upon the international community, especially in light of its subsequent failure to conform domestic law to the minimum human rights standards as established in the Covenant and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the last thirty years.

Constitutionality

It has been argued that Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, as well as Article 4 of the ICERD, may be unconstitutional according to Supreme Court precedent, which is the reason behind the Senate reservations.

Non-compliance

In 1994, the United Nations' Human Rights Committee expressed concerns with compliance:

Of particular concern are widely formulated reservations which essentially render ineffective all Covenant rights which would require any change in national law to ensure compliance with Covenant obligations. No real international rights or obligations have thus been accepted. And when there is an absence of provisions to ensure that Covenant rights may be sued on in domestic courts, and, further, a failure to allow individual complaints to be brought to the Committee under the first Optional Protocol, all the essential elements of the Covenant guarantees have been removed.

Indeed, the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant. Its citizens are not permitted to sue to enforce their basic human rights under the Covenant. It has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). As such, the Covenant has been rendered ineffective, with the bone of contention being United States officials' insistence upon preserving a vast web of sovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and executive branch immunities that often deprives its citizens of the "effective remedy" under law the Covenant is intended to guarantee.

In 2006, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern over what it interprets as material non-compliance, exhorting the United States to take immediate corrective action:

The Committee notes with concern the restrictive interpretation made by the State party of its obligations under the Covenant, as a result in particular of (a) its position that the Covenant does not apply with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, nor in time of war, despite the contrary opinions and established jurisprudence of the Committee and the International Court of Justice; (b) its failure to take fully into consideration its obligation under the Covenant not only to respect, but also to ensure the rights prescribed by the Covenant; and (c) its restrictive approach to some substantive provisions of the Covenant, which is not in conformity with the interpretation made by the Committee before and after the State party’s ratification of the Covenant.

The State party should review its approach and interpret the Covenant in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context, including subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose. The State party should in particular (a) acknowledge the applicability of the Covenant with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, as well as its applicability in time of war; (b) take positive steps, when necessary, to ensure the full implementation of all rights prescribed by the Covenant; and (c) consider in good faith the interpretation of the Covenant provided by the Committee pursuant to its mandate.

As of February 2013, the United States is among States scheduled for examination in the 107th (11–28 March 2013) and 109th (14 October – 1 November 2013) sessions of the Committee.

Parties to the covenant

State	Date signed	Date ratified, acceded or succeeded	Notes
Afghanistan		24 Jan 1983	Acceded as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Albania		4 Oct 1991
Algeria	10 Dec 1968	12 Sep 1989
Andorra	5 Aug 2002	22 Sep 2006
Angola		10 Jan 1992
Argentina	19 Feb 1968	8 Aug 1986
Armenia		23 Jun 1993
Australia	18 Dec 1972	13 Aug 1980
Austria	10 Dec 1973	10 Sep 1978
Azerbaijan		13 Aug 1992
Bahamas	4 Dec 2008	23 Dec 2008
Bahrain		20 Sep 2006
Bangladesh		6 Sep 2000
Barbados		5 Jan 1973
Belarus	19 Mar 1968	12 Nov 1973	Signed and ratified as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
Belgium	10 Dec 1968	21 Apr 1983
Belize		10 Jun 1996
Benin		12 Mar 1992
Bolivia		12 Aug 1982	Acceded as the Republic of Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina		1 Sep 1993	Succeeded as Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Botswana	8 Sep 2000	8 Sep 2000
Brazil	12 Dec 1991	24 Jan 1992
Bulgaria	8 Oct 1968	21 Sep 1970	Signed and ratified as the People's Republic of Bulgaria
Burkina Faso		4 Jan 1999
Burundi		9 May 1990
Cambodia	17 Oct 1980	26 May 1992	Signed as Democratic Kampuchea
Cameroon		27 Jun 1984
Canada		19 May 1976
Cape Verde		6 Aug 1993
Central African Republic		8 May 1981
Chad		9 Jun 1995
Chile	16 Sep 1969	10 Feb 1972
China	5 Oct 1998		Signed by PRC ambassador, permanent representative to UN, Qin Huasun. Still not ratified in 2014.
Colombia	21 Dec 1966	29 Oct 1969
Comoros	25 Sep 2008
Congo, Democratic Republic of the / (Kinshasa)		1 Nov 1976	Ratified as the Republic of Zaire
Congo, Republic of the / (Brazzaville)		5 Oct 1983	Ratified as the People's Republic of the Congo
Costa Rica	19 Dec 1966	29 Nov 1968
Côte d'Ivoire		26 Mar 1992
Croatia		12 October 1992	Succeeded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Cuba	28 Feb 2008
Cyprus	19 Dec 1966	2 Apr 1969
Czech Republic		22 Feb 1993	Signed 7 October 1968 and ratified 23 December 1975 as Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
Denmark	20 Mar 1968	6 Jan 1972
Djibouti		5 Nov 2002
Dominica		17 Jun 1993
Dominican Republic		4 Jan 1978
East Timor		18 Sep 2003
Ecuador	4 Apr 1968	6 Mar 1969
Egypt	4 Aug 1967	14 Jan 1982	Signed as the United Arab Republic
El Salvador	21 Sep 1967	30 Nov 1979
Eritrea		22 Jan 2002
Estonia		21 Oct 1991
Ethiopia		11 Jun 1993
Equatorial Guinea		25 Sep 1987
Finland	11 Oct 1967	19 Aug 1975
France		4 Nov 1980
Gabon		21 Jan 1983
Gambia		22 Mar 1979
Georgia		3 May 1994
Germany	9 Oct 1968	17 Dec 1973	The German Democratic Republic had signed on 23 March 1973 and ratified on 8 November 1973 the Covenant with reservations and declarations
Ghana	7 Sep 2000	7 Sep 2000
Greece		5 May 1997
Grenada		6 Sep 1991
Guatemala		5 May 1992
Guinea	28 Feb 1967	24 Jan 1978
Guinea-Bissau	12 Sep 2000	1 Nov 2010
Guyana	22 Aug 1968	15 Feb 1977
Haiti		6 Feb 1991
Honduras	19 Dec 1966	25 Aug 1997
Hungary	25 Mar 1969	17 Jan 1974	Signed and ratified as the People's Republic of Hungary
Iceland	30 Dec 1968	22 Aug 1979
India		10 Apr 1979
Indonesia		23 Feb 2006
Iran	4 Apr 1968	24 Jun 1975	Signed and ratified as Empire of Iran
Iraq	18 Feb 1969	25 Jan 1971
Ireland	1 Oct 1973	8 Dec 1989
Israel	19 Dec 1966	3 Oct 1991
Italy	18 Jan 1967	15 Sep 1978
Jamaica	19 Dec 1966	3 Oct 1975
Japan	30 May 1978	21 Jun 1979
Jordan	30 Jun 1972	28 May 1975
Kazakhstan	2 Dec 2003	24 Jan 2006
Kenya		1 May 1972
Korea (North), Democratic People's Republic of		14 Sep 1981	Sought withdrawal on 25 August 1997 but Secretariat stated Covenant has no withdrawal provision so could not withdraw without approval of all states
Korea (South), Republic of		10 Apr 1990
Kuwait		21 May 1996
Kyrgyzstan		7 Oct 1994
Laos	7 Dec 2000	25 Sep 2009
Latvia		14 Apr 1992
Lebanon		3 Nov 1972
Lesotho		9 Sep 1992
Liberia	18 Apr 1967	22 Sep 2004
Libya		15 May 1970	Signed and ratified as the Libyan Arab Republic
Liechtenstein		10 Dec 1998
Lithuania		20 Nov 1991
Luxembourg	26 Nov 1974	18 Aug 1983
Republic of Macedonia		18 Jan 1994	The former Yugoslavia had signed the Covenant on 8 August 1967 and ratified it on 2 June 1971
Madagascar	17 Sep 1969	21 Jun 1971	Signed and ratified as the Malagasy Republic
Malawi		22 Dec 1993
Maldives		19 Sep 2006
Mali		16 Jul 1974
Malta		13 Sep 1990
Mauritania		17 Nov 2004
Mauritius		12 Dec 1973
Mexico		23 Mar 1981
Moldova		26 Jan 1993
Monaco	26 Jun 1997	28 Aug 1997
Mongolia	5 Jun 1968	18 Nov 1974	Signed and ratified as the Mongolian People's Republic
Montenegro		23 Oct 2006
Morocco	19 Jan 1977	3 May 1979
Mozambique		21 Jul 1993
Namibia		28 Nov 1994
Nauru	12 Nov 2001
Nepal		14 May 1991	Signed as the Kingdom of Nepal
Netherlands	25 Jun 1969	11 Dec 1978
New Zealand	12 Nov 1968	28 Dec 1978
Nicaragua		12 Mar 1980
Niger		7 Mar 1986
Nigeria		29 Jul 1993
Norway	20 Mar 1968	13 Sep 1972
Pakistan	17 Apr 2008	23 Jun 2010
Palau	20 Sep 2011
State of Palestine		2 Apr 2014
Panama	27 Jul 1976	8 Mar 1977
Papua New Guinea		21 Jul 2008
Paraguay		10 Jun 1992
Peru	11 Aug 1977	28 Apr 1978
Philippines	19 Dec 1966	23 Oct 1986
Poland	2 Mar 1967	18 Mar 1977	Signed and ratified as the People's Republic of Poland
Portugal	7 Oct 1976	15 Jun 1978
Romania	27 Jun 1968	9 Dec 1974	Signed and ratified as Socialist Republic of Romania
Russia	18 Mar 1968	16 Oct 1973	Succeeded from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Rwanda		16 Apr 1975
Samoa		15 Feb 2008
San Marino		18 Oct 1985
Sao Tome and Principe	31 Oct 1995
Senegal	6 Jul 1970	13 Feb 1978
Serbia		12 Mar 2001	The former Yugoslavia had signed the Covenant on 8 August 1967 and ratified it on 2 June 1971
Seychelles		5 May 1992
Sierra Leone		23 Aug 1996
Slovakia		28 May 1993	Signed 7 October 1968 and ratified 23 December 1975 as Czechoslovakia
Slovenia		6 Jul 1992	The former Yugoslavia had signed the Covenant on 8 August 1967 and ratified it on 2 June 1971
Somalia		24 Jan 1990
South Africa	3 Oct 1994	10 Dec 1998
Spain	28 Sep 1976	27 Apr 1977
Sri Lanka		11 Jun 1980
St. Lucia	22 Sep 2011
St. Vincent and the Grenadines		9 Nov 1981
Sudan		18 Mar 1986	Acceded as the Democratic Republic of Sudan
Suriname		28 Dec 1976
Swaziland		26 Mar 2004
Sweden	29 Sep 1967	6 Dec 1971
Switzerland		18 Jun 1992
Syria		21 Apr 1969
Tajikistan		4 Jan 1999
Thailand		29 Oct 1996
Togolese Republic		24 May 1984
Trinidad and Tobago		21 Dec 1978
Tunisia	30 Apr 1968	18 Mar 1969
Turkey	15 Aug 2000	23 Sep 2003
Turkmenistan		1 May 1997
Uganda		21 Jun 1995
Ukraine	20 Mar 1968	12 Nov 1973	Signed and ratified as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	16 Sep 1968	20 May 1976
Tanzania		11 Jun 1976
United States of America	5 Oct 1977	8 Jun 1992
Uruguay	21 Feb 1967	1 Apr 1970
Uzbekistan		28 Sep 1995
Vanuatu	29 Nov 2007	21 Nov 2008
Venezuela	24 Jun 1969	10 May 1978
Vietnam		24 Sep 1982
Yemen		9 Feb 1987
Zambia		10 Apr 1984
Zimbabwe		13 May 1991

Withdrawal

On 23 August 1997 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea drafted a notification of withdrawal from the Covenant. On 23 September the Secretary-General forwarded an aide-mémoire to the government of the DPRK and the other signatories stating that, since the covenant did not contain a mechanism for withdrawal it would not be possible for the DPRK to leave the covenant except with the agreement of all other state parties.

States not members of the Covenant

The majority of states in the world are parties to the ICCPR. As of March 2012 the following 25 states have either not yet signed the convention, or have signed but have not yet ratified the convention.

Signed but not ratified

1. People's Republic of China (1998-10-05)
2. Comoros (2008-09-25)
3. Cuba (2008-02-28)
4. Nauru (2001-11-12)
5. Palau (2011-09-20)
6. Sao Tome and Principe (1995-10-31)
7. Saint Lucia (2011-09-22)

Neither signed nor ratified

1. Antigua and Barbuda
2. Bhutan
3. Brunei
4. Burma (Myanmar)
5. Fiji
6. Kiribati
7. Malaysia
8. Marshall Islands
9. Federated States of Micronesia
10. Oman
11. Qatar
12. Saint Kitts and Nevis
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Singapore
15. Solomon Islands
16. South Sudan
17. Tonga
18. Tuvalu
19. United Arab Emirates

Non-members of the UN

1. Kosovo
2. Taiwan (Republic of China)
3. Vatican City (through the Holy See)

See also

• United Nations Human Rights Committee
• United Nations Human Rights Council
• United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 66 (I)
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI)

Article based on English Wikipedia

This article or parts of it were created based, in whole or in part, on this version of the English Wikipedia article. The complete history of the article can be found there.

Readability 11 December 2014

fron http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text : Coleman Liau index : 12.77 Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 14.97 ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 14.82 SMOG : 16.40 Flesch Reading Ease : 32.03

List of sentences which we suggest you should consider to rewrite to improve readability of the text :

• These include rights to physical integrity, in the form of the right to life and freedom from torture and slavery (Articles 6, 7, and 8);
• liberty and security of the person, in the form of freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to habeas corpus (Articles 9 – 11);
• procedural fairness in law, in the form of rights to due process, a fair and impartial trial, the presumption of innocence, and recognition as a person before the law (Articles 14, 15, and 16);
• individual liberty, in the form of the freedoms of movement, thought, conscience and religion, speech, association and assembly, family rights, the right to a nationality, and the right to privacy (Articles 12, 13, 17 – 24);
• prohibition of any propaganda for war as well as any advocacy of national or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by law (Article 20);
• political participation, including the right to join a political party and the right to vote (Article 25); Non-discrimination, minority rights and equality before the law (Articles 26 and 27).
• [44] This provision, specifically article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity, thereby nullifying prohibitions on homosexual behaviour,
• [45] however, the wording of this covenant's marriage right (Article 23) excludes the extrapolation of a same-sex marriage right from this provision.
• Summary The following section summarizes the text of the Covenant: Part 1 (Article 1) recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right to "freely determine their political status",[1] pursue their economic, social and cultural goals, and manage and dispose of their own resources.
• [6] The rights can only be limited "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,"[7] and even then no derogation is permitted from the rights to life, freedom from torture and slavery, the freedom from retrospective law, the right to personhood, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
• [4] It also requires the rights be recognized "without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,"[5] and to ensure that they are enjoyed equally by women.
• [11] While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious crimes"[12] and forbids it to be used on children and pregnant women[13] or in a manner contrary to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
• [38] Individual liberties Main pages: Freedom of movement, Freedom of religion, Freedom of thought, Freedom of speech, Freedom of assembly, and Freedom of association Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and to leave a country.
• [8] The article is now interpreted to impose similar obligations to those required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, including not just prohibition of torture, but active measures to prevent its use and a prohibition on refoulement.

Part 5 (Articles 46 – 47)

• clarifies that the Covenant shall not be interpreted as interfering with the operation of the United Nations or "the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources".
• It recognizes a negative right of a people not to be deprived of its means of subsistence,[2] and imposes an obligation on those parties still responsible for non-self governing and trust territories (colonies) to encourage and respect their self-determination.
• [35] Article 15 prohibits prosecutions under Ex post facto law and the imposition of retrospective criminal penalties, and requires the imposition of the lesser penalty where criminal sentences have changed between the offence and conviction.
• [56] The Second Optional Protocol abolishes the death penalty; however, countries were permitted to make a reservation allowing for use of death penalty for the most serious crimes of a military nature, committed during wartime.
• The signers of this document have agreed to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, rights to due process, and a fair trial.

It prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, requires any deprivation of liberty to be according to law,[19]

• and obliges parties to allow those deprived of their liberty to challenge their imprisonment through the courts.

[3]

• Part 2 (Articles 2 – 5) obliges parties to legislate where necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant, and to provide an effective legal remedy for any violation of those rights.1 establishes the ground rules: everyone must be equal before the courts, and any hearing must take place in open court before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, with any judgment or ruling made public.
• [25] The article also imposes specific obligations around criminal justice, requiring prisoners in pretrial detention to be separated from convicted prisoners, and children to be separated from adults.
• Core provisions Rights to physical integrity Main pages: Right to life, Torture, and Slavery Article 6 of the Covenant recognizes the individual's "inherent right to life" and requires it to be protected by law.
• [39] These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state,[40] and can be restricted only where necessary to protect national security, public order or health, and the rights and freedoms of others.
• [20] These provisions apply not just to those imprisoned as part of the criminal process, but also to those detained due to mental illness, drug addiction, or for educational or immigration purposes.
• [14] The UN Human Rights Committee interprets the Article as "strongly suggest[ing] that abolition is desirable",[11] and regards any progress towards abolition of the death penalty as advancing this right.
• The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (a separate body to the United Nations Human Rights Council), which reviews regular reports on how the rights are being implemented.
• [29] Closed hearings are only permitted for reasons of privacy, justice, or national security, and judgments may only be suppressed in divorce cases or to protect the interests of children.
• [11] It therefore requires parties to take positive measures to reduce infant mortality and increase life expectancy, as well as forbidding arbitrary killings by security forces.
• In contrast, Article 26 contains a revolutionary norm by providing an autonomous equality principle which is not dependent upon another right under the convention being infringed.

Thank you User:LilyKitty!

I just found LilyKity 's article . . . she did a great job of simplifying the original document!! I will need to archive this page since it is redundant. Smlombardi (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)