1. The Committee considered the second periodic report of Luxembourg
(CCPR/C/57/Add.4) at its 1186th and 1187th meetings, held on 19
October 1992 and adopted at the 1203rd meeting (forty-sixth session),
held on 5 November 1992 the following comments:
A. Introduction
2. The Committee commends the State party on its report which
contains clear and basic information on laws relating to the implementation
of the Covenant's provisions. The Committee, however, regrets
that the report lacks information concerning the actual situation
on the ground, including factors and difficulties which may affect
the implementation of the Covenant.
3. The Committee also commends Luxembourg for the core document
(HRI/CORE/1/Add.10) submitted in accordance with the consolidated
guidelines for the initial part of reports submitted under the
various international human rights instruments (HRI/1991/1).
4. The Committee expresses its appreciation for the high-level
delegation which represented the State party during the consideration
of its report. The competence of that delegation and the cooperation
it demonstrated in responding to requests for further information
facilitated a constructive dialogue between the Committee and
the State party.
B. Positive aspects
5. The Committee welcomes the position accorded to the Covenant
within the hierarchy of the State party's national law. The Committee
has noted the delegation's statement that the provisions of the
Covenant may be directly invoked in the courts and that, where
there is a conflict between those provisions and national law,
the Covenant is accorded supremacy. The Committee also welcomes
the initiative taken to ensure the abolition of the death penalty.
C. Principal subjects of concern
6. The Committee expresses its concern over the insufficient
publicity given to the Covenant among persons in those professions
most concerned with its application and among the general public,
which thus may not be adequately informed of the protection afforded
by the Covenant and of the possibility of submitting individual
communications under the Optional Protocol.
7. With respect to the treatment of prisoners, the Committee
is concerned over present practices pertaining to solitary confinement
which are incompatible with article 10 of the Covenant. Additionally,
there is no remedy available with regard to the decision of the
Prosecutor General to apply solitary confinement. Another area
of concern is the application of pre-trial detention which may
lead to excessive periods of detention and which may infringe
upon the presumption of innocence.
8. Other areas of concern include article 18 of the Constitution
which still presupposes the existence of the death penalty; the
lack of a remedy to decisions of the Prosecutor General regarding
internment of the mentally ill; the deprivation of the right to
vote as a further sanction in criminal cases; and continuing provision
in the law for hard or forced labour, which has not yet been abolished.
The Committee also notes that care must be taken with present
practices for financing religious minorities to ensure that they
remain in conformity with articles 2 (1) and 27 of the Covenant.
D. Suggestions and recommendations
9. The Committee recommends that the State party undertake steps
to disseminate information about the Covenant and the Optional
Protocol; restrict the use of solitary confinement to short, temporary
periods and only where necessary as part of disciplinary measures;
provide an effective remedy for those who have been subjected
to solitary confinement in a prison or to internment in a facility
for the mentally ill; and review legislation on criminal procedure
so that it is fully in line with provisions concerning pre-trial
detention under article 9 and the presumption of innocence under
article 14.
10. The Committee also suggests that the State party consider
abolishing the deprivation of the right to vote as part of legitimate
punishment; consider a new approach to guaranteeing the rights
of minorities, particularly in regard to the system of conventions
between the State and various religious communities; and consider
the need for a constitutional remedy to further clarify situations
where conflicts may seem to arise between the provision of the
Covenant and the Constitution. The Committee also invites the
State party to review the reservations and interpretative declarations
it made upon ratification with a view to withdrawing them as far
as possible.