Statement of Ralph G. Steinhardt,Professor of Law,before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,U.S. House of Representatives

Conclusion The Alvarez-Machain decision demonstrates that there is no simple division between international law, on the one hand, and domestic or constitutional law, on the other. It is a domestic matter that U.S. citizens are suddenly vulnerable to reciprocal exercises of power by foreign states. It is a domestic matter if the decision compromises the international cooperation on which the drug war depends. It will certainly be no consolation to those whose lives depend on winning that war that the case involved a single, relatively obscure treaty with a single foreign country. It is a constitutional matter if the Court will no longer exercise independent judgment in the interpretation of the supreme law of the land or will view as optional agreements the rest of the world considers comprehensive and binding.And as we reflect on the importance of treaties in such areas as trade or-especially after President Yeltsin's visit last week-arms reduction, it becomes clear that treaties-though international in origin-are usually domestic in their impact. The Supreme Court's disposition in Alvarez-Machain seems radically at odds with this nation's long-term, sophisticated self-interest in assuring the domestic sanctity of international agreements.This statement was presented in a slightly altered form to the Subcommittee on June 22, 1992. Professor Steinhardt is Associate Director of the International and Comparative Law Program at the National Law Center, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; B.A., Bowdoin College 1976; J.D., Harvard University 1980.Professor Steinhardt appeared with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California in its representation of Dr. Alvarez-Machain in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States.     

Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,Ruling of May 15, 2001, No. 134-O

An article in Rossiiskaia gazeta became the reason for initiation of a criminal case against Ruslan Nakhushev, a lawyer and religious figure well known in Nal'chik. But many lawyers think that the future of the case is transparent, due to the flaws in domestic legislation.     

Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the Un Human Rights Committee

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a body of 18 independent experts (including a member from the Netherlands, Professor Cees Flinterman) who are tasked with monitoring compliance with the provisions of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in force 23 March 1976). The Committee deploys four principal activities — periodic examination of State Party reports, interpretation and progressive development of the provisions of the Covenant in the form of General Comments, and adjudication of individual complaints under the Optional Protocol, as well as follow-up procedures. This article analyzes the Committee’s second General Comment on Article 19 of the Covenant, which stipulates freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. In 52 paragraphs the General Comment systematically examines, defines and delimits the concepts contained in the three subparagraphs of Article 19, basing itself primarily on the Committee’s concluding observations upon examination of State Party reports and on the case-law in response to petitions under the Optional Protocol. The Committee highlights the primacy of freedom of opinion, recognizing that it is crucial for a democratic society that persons have access to truthful, reliable and pluralistic information, including through the internet, in order to develop a personal opinion whose expression must then be protected by law. The Committee notes, however, that whereas it is inadmissible to impose any restrictions on freedom of opinion, there are certain responsibilities that attach to the exercise of freedom of expression, namely the respect of the reputation of others as well as considerations of health, morals and national security. The Committee holds that so-called ‘memory laws’ as well as blasphemy laws are incompatible with Article 19 and that defamation laws must strike a balance between competing rights and interests. Paragraph 49 of the General Comment clearly affirms the right to hold non-conformist historical views and the right to be wrong. While it is not the function of lawyers or judges to establish what historical truth is, Article 20 of the Covenant imposes an obligation on governments to prohibit incitement to racial hatred or violence, the criminalization of which requires narrow definition of the elements of the crime.