*
The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present communication: Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati, Ms. Christine Chanet, Mr. Maurice Glèlè Ahanhanzo, Mr. Yuji Iwasawa, Mr. Edwin Johnson, Mr. Ahmed Tawfik Khalil, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Ms. Zonke Zanele Majodina, Ms. Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Mr. Michael O'Flaherty, Ms. Elisabeth Palm, Mr. José Luis Pérez Sanchez-Cerro, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada, Sir Nigel Rodley, Mr. Ivan Shearer and Ms. Ruth Wedgwood.
CCPR/C/93/D/1423/2005 Page 4
Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of the communication is Mr. Gennadi ipin, an ethnic Russian, born in the Kirovskaya region of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic on 8 October 1961 and currently residing in Estonia. He claims to be a victim of violations by Estonia of article 26 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 21 January 1992. The author is not represented by counsel. The facts as presented by the author 2.1. On 21 August 2001, the author, a former military servant of the former USSR army, submitted an application for Estonian citizenship by way of naturalization. On 5 February 2003, the author's application was denied, by Decree of the Government of 28 January 2003, on the ground that he belonged to a group of persons mentioned in paragraph 21 (1) clause 6 of the Citizenship Act 1995. The relevant section of the Act states as follows: "§21. Refusal to grant or refusal for resumption of Estonian citizenship (1) Estonian citizenship shall not be granted to or resumed by a person who: …………. 6) has served as a professional member of the armed forces of a foreign state or who has been assigned to the reserve forces thereof or has retired therefrom………" 2.2 On 27 November 2003, the Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the author's request for an appeal. A further appeal to the Tallinn Court of Appeal was dismissed on 21 June 2004. On 27 October 2004, the Supreme Court decided that the author's appeal was manifestly ill-founded. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that paragraph 21 (1) clause 6 of the Law on Citizenship is a discriminatory provision which imposed unreasonable and unjustified restrictions on his rights on the basis of his social origin, attachment to a specific social group and/or position. This provision of the law includes a presumption that all foreigners who have served in the armed forces pose an indefinite threat to the State party, notwithstanding individual features of their service or training obtained. There is no evidence in the court documents that the author poses a threat to Estonian security. In addition, he adds that residence permits shall not be granted or shall be annulled where the individual in question is regarded as a threat to national security. However, the State party has granted temporary permits to the author several times, thus demonstrating that he does not represent such a threat. 3.2 Although the author concedes that there is no right to citizenship under the Covenant, article 26 provides for equality before the law, equal protection of the law and prohibition from discrimination. As the law itself unreasonably forbids persons belonging to a determined social group (or of determined social origin/position), from obtaining citizenship, it violates article 26, as it is discriminatory. In addition, as there are a number of people in Estonia who have received citizenship, despite their former service as military personnel of a foreign State (including the USSR), the law in question has not been applied in the same manner to all those subject to it. Thus, the author's right to equality before the law has been violated. The State party has failed to

上一页下一页