1.  Legal Instruments on the International and Regional Levels

3  On the universal level, based on Art. 13 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] [‘UDHR’]), Art. 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1966] [‘ICCPR’]) protects the freedom of movement. On the regional level freedom of movement is protected by Arts 2 and 3 Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘Protocol No 4 ECHR’; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1950]), Art. 22 American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention on Human Rights [1969] [‘ACHR’]), and Art. 12 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights [1981] [‘AChHPR’]). A comparison of these provisions reveals that irrespective of some differences in wording and scope, a common understanding of a necessary protection of the freedom of movement can be established.

4  The first paragraph of the guarantee is usually dedicated to the protection of freedom of internal movement and choice of residence. Under these rights everybody is entitled to change their location within the borders (Boundaries)of a State subject only to their will and not having to request permission from the authorities or justify their movement. Actually all corresponding provisions, except for Art. 13 (1) UDHR, expressly restrict these rights to those who are lawfully within the territory of a given State. In view of the fact that States only have to tolerate within their territory individuals who reside there lawfully, it is argued that irrespective of the wording Art. 13 UDHR must apply with the same limitation (Grahl-Madsen, Melander and Ring 268). Whether an individual is lawfully residing on the territory is generally determined by the respective domestic law (Immigration). The question of lawfulness mainly arises in relation to non-nationals of the State concerned, for nationals in principle always reside lawfully within the territory as they have a nearly absolute right to enter their State of nationality (Nowak Art. 12 para. 8). Yet, there are a few exceptions, which derive from the colonial past of States (Colonialism; see also Decolonization). For example, nationals of British Overseas Territories were not entitled under domestic law to enter the territory of the United Kingdom (‘UK’) unconditionally until 2002, even though they were British nationals. The UK submitted a corresponding reservation to Art. 12 (4) ICCPR upon ratification. At any rate, restrictions on non-nationals upon entry, such as limits on the length or the purpose of stay, remain permissible. However, the Human Rights Committee (‘HRC’) has pointed out that once an alien has entered the territory and resides on it in accordance with domestic law, he or she is entitled to enjoy freedom of internal movement and choice of residence in the same way as nationals (HRC General Comment No 15 para. 8; see also Equality of Individuals). A difference in treatment between aliens and nationals or between different groups of aliens has to meet the requirements for a permissible restriction under the relevant limitation clause (see paras 14–16 below). Freedom of movement is protected from both public and private interference; eg, it would be an impermissible restriction if a woman was obliged by law or practice to request permission from another person for any movement (HRC General Comment No 27 para. 6). In the case of private interference it would be the duty of the State concerned to protect her against such a violation.

5  The second paragraph of the provisions relating to freedom of movement typically enshrines the right to leave any country, including one’s own. It covers the right of the individual to leave any country temporarily—freedom to travel abroad—or permanently —freedom to emigrate (Emigration). It does not ensure that the person has a place to go to as there is no general right under international law to enter a foreign State. The right to leave is commonly taken for granted in democratic societies, yet a look at the not too distant past reveals that it is by no means self-evident. Socialist States imposed such extensive and radically implemented restrictions on the individual’s right to leave that it had nearly lost any substance. During the drafting process of Art. 13 UDHR the delegate of the Soviet Union proposed that the right to leave should be granted only when exercised in accordance with a procedure laid down in the respective national laws. This proposal evoked strong objections from the other delegates and eventually was refused by a clear vote (Hofmann 34–36). In order to secure the effective enjoyment of this right, the provision has to be read in such a way that it entitles the individual to obtain all necessary travel documents at a reasonable cost within a reasonable time (HRC General Comment No 27 para. 9; see also Passports). Hence, the right to leave imposes obligations not only on the State of residence, ie not to prevent the departure, but also on the State of nationality. The latter may only refuse to issue required travel documents if this may be justified under the respective limitation clause of the provision. Still under debate is whether freedom of movement also entitles the individual to take along his or her personal effects. There is good reason to understand the guarantee in this way as supporting the implementation of the right (see also Giegerich para. 36; Property, Right to, International Protection).

6  The fourth right contained in provisions relating to freedom of movement is the right to enter or to return to one’s own country, being the counterpart to the right to leave any country. It contributes to the efficacy of the latter, as people are more likely to claim their right to leave knowing that they always have the opportunity to come back. The majority of the international legal instruments phrase the right to enter or return to one’s own country in a negative way, stipulating that ‘no one shall be deprived of the right to enter’ instead of ‘everyone has the right’. However, the latter formulation is taken up by Art. 13 (2) UDHR and Art. 12 (2) AChHPR.

7  Whereas Art. 12 (2) AChHPR thus recaptures the wording of Art. 13 (2) UDHR by entitling everyone to return to their own country, Art. 22 (5) ACHR and Arts 3 (1) and (2) Protocol No 4 ECHR expressly restrict the right to enter a State and the prohibition to be expelled to the nationals of that State only. Thus the circle of beneficiaries under the UDHR and AChHPR is wider than under the ACHR and ECHR. The same is true for Art. 12 (4) ICCPR which states that ‘no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country’. By referring to ‘no one’ the text does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals. On the other hand, the words ‘his own country’ imply that there has to be a special bond of some kind between the State and the individual. Certainly, the term embraces the country of nationality, but also permits a broader interpretation. The HRC has indicated that the notion ‘might embrace other categories of long-term residents, including but not limited to stateless persons arbitrarily deprived of the right to acquire the nationality of the country of such residence’ (HRC General Comment No 27 para. 20; Stateless Persons). This does not mean that every permanent resident may claim the State of residence to be his or her own country. As Stewart v Canada, decided by the HRC, shows, the term ‘his own country’ must always be interpreted in the light of the individual case.

8  Unlike Art. 3 Protocol No 4 ECHR and Art. 22 (5) ACHR, Art. 12 (4) ICCPR only prohibits arbitrary deprivation of the right to enter. The content of these guarantees, however, does not differ as the HRC has stressed that nowadays ‘there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country could be reasonable’ (HRC General Comment No 27 para. 21). Furthermore, the concept of arbitrariness was not meant to restrict the prohibition of deprivation in any way, but to clarify that the provision applies to any kind of State action, ie legislative, judicial or administrative action (ibid). Finally, a State may not deprive someone of the right to enter their own State by taking away their citizenship. Even if the legal instrument does not include a provision stipulating a right to nationality (cf Art. 15 UDHR), this deprivation would constitute an impermissible circumvention of the rights conferred upon the individual.

9  The logical counterpart to the right comprised in the term freedom of movement is the right not to move or be moved, ie protection against forced resettlement and expulsion from one’s own country (see also Forced Population Transfer; Population, Expulsion and Transfer). Beyond that, several conventions contain further regulatory provisions concerning the expulsion of aliens (Art. 22 (6) ACHR, Art. 12 (4) AChHPR, Art. 13 ICCPR; Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation), the prohibition of refoulement (Art. 22 (8) ACHR; see also Art. 33 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951), and the prohibition of mass expulsion of aliens (Art. 22 (9) ACHR, Art. 12 (5) AChHPR, Art. 4 Protocol No 4 ECHR).

2.  European Union

10  Unlike the international legal instruments already examined in this article, the law of the European (Economic) Community initially did not contain a provision stipulating a general and uncommitted right to freedom of movement for everyone. Instead the Treaty establishing the European Community (‘ECT’) and the secondary legislation granted the right to freedom of movement only to workers (now Art. 39 ECT; see also Migrant Workers) and self-employed persons (Art. 43 ECT) as far as they are nationals of the Member States or their family members (see also Family, Right to, International Protection). Hence, freedom of movement was primarily protected as a means for individuals to pursue economic activities within the common market. Compared with the guarantees of freedom of movement in international law, the content and scope of the corresponding rights under EC law appear to be rather limited (European Community and Union Law and International Law). Yet, the reason for this limitation becomes clear if one recalls the very nature of the EC, which first and foremost was created as an economic community, not a political union. This changed with the implementation of the Treaty on the European Union signed in 1992 in Maastricht (‘TEU’; European Union, Historical Evolution). The treaty introduced the concept of European citizenship; according to Art. 17 ECT everyone who is a national of a Member State is at the same time a citizen of the EU. European citizenship entails several rights for the individual, ie a general and uncommitted right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Art. 18 ECT). Following the judgment in Baumbast v Secretary of State for the Home Department of the European Court of Justice in 2002, the provision of Art. 18 ECT is now commonly considered as comprising an independent right to freedom of movement for EU citizens that is directly applicable (Kokott 214–17). Therefore, freedom of movement is no longer guaranteed as a mere annex to the economic-related fundamental freedoms, but as a fundamental freedom itself (Magiera [2005] 437). As such it entitles EU citizens to enter another Member State from anywhere in the world and to move freely as well as choose a residence within the territory of the EU. Moreover, it comprises a right to leave any Member State, but only as far as this is a necessary prerequisite to enter another Member State. A right to leave the territory of the EU as such is not included in the guarantee.

11  The relationship between Art. 18 ECT and Arts 39, 43, and 49 ECT is generally assessed as one of lex generalis to lex specialis, meaning that as soon as economic activities are the reason for the movement only the economic-related fundamental freedoms are applicable. Recent jurisprudence of the ECJ seems however to cast doubt on this view. Likewise it is under dispute whether Art. 18 ECT also applies to cases that do not involve transboundary movements of persons between Member States, ie movements of EU citizens within the borders of their own State. The wording of Art. 18 ECT is ambiguous.

12  It is important to remark that apart from the guarantees already mentioned that are expressly enshrined in EC law, the EU is also indirectly bound by its Member States’ international human rights commitments that take part in the formation of the general principles of community law (Art. 6 (2) TEU). Through this mechanism the rights related to the freedom of movement as protected under Protocol No 4 ECHR and ICCPR may become relevant for the EU/EC. Art. 45 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2002]), still not yet entered into force but intended to become part of the European Constitution (Art. I–10 (2) (a) and Art. II–105 Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe) or an equivalent basic document, intends to replace Art. 18 ECT. Scope and content of both provisions are identical.

1.  Universal and Regional Legal Instruments

13  As the freedom of movement is not an absolute right, all international legal instruments examined in this article contain provisions according to which the right to freedom of internal movement and choice of residence as well as the right to leave any country may be restricted. Only the right to enter one’s own country is usually guaranteed without explicit restrictions. Nevertheless, it may be suspended temporarily, for instance if the person concerned suffers from an infectious disease and is put in quarantine outside the State’s territory. This is not considered to be an impermissible deprivation but a modification of the right to enter (Gollwitzer Prot. 4 Art. 3 para. 4), or, at least, it would not be arbitrary. The UDHR and the AChHPR subject the right to enter to the same restrictions as the other rights protected by the freedom of movement (Arts 13 and 29 UDHR; Art. 12 (3) AChHPR).

14  A general pattern of the conditions under which the restriction of the rights is permissible, is clearly discernible. First, any limitation has to be determined by law or must be in accordance with it. The term ‘law’ in this context refers to an act of parliament that is general and abstract or an equivalent unwritten norm of common law. The law has to be accessible and predictable for the individual (Nowak Art. 12 para. 29). Secondly, a restriction is only permissible to protect essential interests listed in the respective provision, eg national security, public safety, ordre public (public policy), public health and morals, the rights and freedoms of others, and the prevention of crime. The enumeration of interests that justify the restriction of rights and freedoms is always regarded as being complete. Thus, a State may not refer to an interest that is not listed. For instance the restriction of the freedom of movement for reasons of the economic welfare of a State is not permissible under any of the respective provisions. Such a limitation was actually discussed during the drafting process of Protocol No 4 ECHR but eventually dismissed by the majority. Finally, almost every limitation clause requires that the restrictions are necessary in a democratic society and—although not explicitly mentioned—consistent with the principle of proportionality and must not impair the essence of the right (cf HRC General Comment No 27 paras 13 and 14). A prime example for a permissible restriction of the right to freedom of internal movement in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others are the laws on trespassing, which exist in every legal system in democratic societies. Their aim is to strike a balance between the interests of freedom of movement and the right to enjoy private property. Other permissible restrictions include the imposition of reporting duties on persons suspected to be criminals along with the prohibition to leave the current place of residence.

15  Art. 2 (4) Protocol No 4 ECHR and Art. 22 (4) ACHR contain an additional limitation clause for the freedom of internal movement, which only applies if the restrictions are confined to designated zones or particular areas of the State concerned. Examples of such limitations are prohibitions to the public to enter designated military areas or nature reserves. The requirements for restrictions are less strict where Art. 2 (4) Protocol No 4 ECHR and Art. 22 (4) ACHR apply. Instead of being necessary in a democratic society, they merely have to be justified by public interest. The principle of proportionality, however, has to be strictly observed.

16  Finally, the most extensive limitation is the derogation of human rights in times of national emergency (Emergency, State of). Derogation means temporary suspension of human rights or restrictions that go further than those permitted under ordinary circumstances. Art. 4 ICCPR, Art. 15 ECHR, and Art. 27 ACHR include provisions on derogation. The guarantee for freedom of movement is not included in the list of non-derogable rights in any of these international legal instruments. However, the conditions under which derogation is permissible according to the corresponding provisions are extremely strict. According to them, the emergency must not be less than life-threatening to the nation. A duty to inform the international community about the derogation is imposed, and the derogation has to be non-discriminatory and must not be further extended and endure no longer than is absolutely necessary to overcome the crisis.

2.  European Union

17  According to Art. 18 ECT all of the rights contained therein are subject to the limitations and conditions set out in the ECT itself and by the measures adopted to give it effect, ie secondary legislation. The corresponding provisions are currently to be found in Arts 39 (3), 46 ECT and in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Unions and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member State (‘Directive 2004/38/EC’). Intrinsically, Arts 39 (3) and 46 ECT stipulate restrictions intended to limit the exercise of the economy-related fundamental freedoms. However, it is now commonly accepted that these limitations also apply analogously to Art. 18 ECT as they are not necessarily linked to economic activities. According to these provisions freedom of movement may be restricted on grounds of public policy, public security, or health. The principle of proportionality has always to be observed.

18  Directive 2004/38/EC, which amended or repealed the previous secondary legislation concerning freedom of movement and right of residence within the EU, specifies the details of this right and of its limitations. According to these provisions EU citizens may enter and reside within another Member State for up to three months subject to only one condition, namely that they take along their passport or identity card. If a citizen of the EU desires to stay longer than the period of three months in the host Member State, he or she has to fulfil further requirements. In particular one must have health insurance and sufficient financial means to support oneself and one’s dependants. Arts 27–33 comprise the details on permissible restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence. The essential interests the restrictions have to serve are reiterated and explained in more detail, eg the restriction of freedom of movement on grounds of public policy or public security shall be ‘based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned’ (Art. 27 Directive 2004/38/EC). Furthermore, it is explained what kind of diseases constitute a threat to public health that justifies the restriction of freedom of movement. Another, if not the most important, provision is included in Art. 35 Directive 2004/38/EC. It permits Member States to adopt all necessary measures to refuse, terminate, or withdraw any right conferred by this directive in cases of abuse or fraud. Yet, in any circumstance the principle of proportionality has to be observed. According to the innovative Arts 16–18 EU citizens and their dependants who resided legally for a continuous period of five years in the host Member State are entitled to a permanent right of residence in that State.

19  Hence, Directive 2004/38/EC not only sets out the details of permissible restrictions to freedom of movement, but also confers rights on the individual. This becomes apparent with regard to third-country nationals who are closely related to EU citizens. As Art. 18 ECT only applies to EU citizens, the dependants of EU citizens who hold the nationality of a third State are only entitled to enter and take residence within a Member State according to the provisions of this directive. Third-country nationals who are not closely related to EU citizens may only obtain a right of residence according to corresponding provisions in Association Agreements (European Community and Union, Association Agreements) which the EC has concluded with several countries, eg Turkey.

Select Bibliography

• S Jagerskiold ‘The Freedom of Movement’ in L Henkin (ed) The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press New York 1981) 166–84.
• H Hannum, The Right to Leave and Return in International Law and Practice (Nijhoff Dordrecht 1987).
• H Hannum ‘The Strasbourg Declaration on the Right to Leave and Return’ (1987) 81 AJIL 432–34.
• R Hofmann Die Ausreisefreiheit nach Völkerrecht und staatlichem Recht: The Right to Leave in International and National Law (Springer Berlin 1988).
• LB Sohn (ed) The Movement of Persons Across Borders (ASIL Washington DC 1992).
• T Buergenthal and D Shelton Protecting Human Rights in the Americas: Cases and Materials (4th ed Engel Kehl 1995).
• S Davidson The Inter-American Human Rights System (Dartmouth, Aldershot 1996).
• JA Frowein and W Peukert Europäische MenschenrRechts-konvention: EMRK-Kommentar (2nd ed Engel Kehl 1996).
• K Hailbronner ‘Comments on: The Right to Leave, the Right to Return and the Question of a Right to Remain’ in V Gowlland-Debbas The Problem of Refugees in the Light of Contemporary International Law Issues (Nijhoff The Hague 1996) 109–18.
• GS Goodwin-Gill ‘The Right to Leave, the Right to Return and the Question of a Right to Remain’ in V Gowlland-Debbas The Problem of Refugees in the Light of Contemporary International Law Issues (Nijhoff The Hague 1996) 93–108.
• U Becker ‘Freizügigkeit in der EU – auf dem Weg vom Begleitrecht zur Bürgerfreiheit’ (1999) Europarecht 522–33.
• A Grahl-Madsen, G Melander and R Ring ‘Article 13’ in G Alfredsson and A Eide (eds), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement (Kluwer The Hague 1999) 265–77.
• T Opsahl and V Dimitrijevic ‘Articles 29 and 30’ in G Alfredsson and A Eide (eds), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement (Kluwer Law International The Hague 1999) 633–52.
• C Beyani Human Rights Standards and the Free Movement of People Within States (OUP Oxford 2000).
• H-W Rengeling ‘Freizügigkeit in der Europäischen Union – Grundfreiheit und Grundrecht für den Unionsbürger’ in M-E Geis and D Lorenz Staat Kirche Verwaltung: Festschrift für Hartmut Maurer zum 70. Geburtstag (Beck München 2001) 973–92.
• C Heyns ‘Civil and Political Rights in the African Charter’ in MD Evans (ed), The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The System in Practice, 1986–2000 (CUP Cambridge 2002) 137–77.
• M Rossi ‘Beschränkungen der Ausreisefreiheit im Lichte des Verfassungs- und Europarechts’ (2002) 127 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 612–54.
• PP Craig and G De Búrca EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (3rd ed OUP Oxford 2003).
• S Magiera ‘Artikel 45: Freizügigkeit und Aufenthaltsfreiheit’ in J Meyer (ed), Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (Nomos Baden-Baden 2003) 480–92.
• K Hailbronner ‘Neue Richtlinie zur Freizügigkeit der Unionsbürger’ (2004) 24 ZAR 259–65.
• S Joseph, J Schultz and M Castan The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (2nd ed OUP Oxford 2004).
• J Lonbay ‘The Free Movement of Persons’ (2004) 53 ICLQ 479–87.
• W Gollwitzer Menschenrechte im Strafverfahren: MRK und IPBPR (De Gruyter Recht Berlin 2005).
• S Magiera ‘Der Rechtsstatus der Unionsbürger’ in K Dicke (ed), Weltinnenrecht: Liber amicorum Jost Delbrück (Duncker & Humblot Berlin 2005) 429–51.
• M Nowak UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd ed Engel Kehl 2005).
• RCA White ‘Free Movement, Equal Treatment, and Citizenship of the Union’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 885–906.
• T Giegerich ‘Kapitel 26: Freizügigkeit’ in R Grote and T Marauhn (eds), EMRK/GG: Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen 2006) 1420–86.
• J Kokott ‘Die Freizügigkeit der Unionsbürger als neue Grundfreiheit’ in P-M Dupuy (ed), Völkerrecht als Weltordnung: Common Values in International Law, Festschrift für/Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (Engel Kehl 2006) 207–27.
• J Meyer-Ladewig Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention: Handkommentar (2nd ed Nomos Baden-Baden 2006).
• C Harvey and RP Barnidge Jr ‘Human Rights, Free Movement, and the Right to Leave in International Law’ (2007) 19 IJRL 1–21.
• W Kluth ‘Artikel 18: Freizügigkeit’ in C Calliess and M Ruffert (eds), EUV/EGV: Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (3rd ed Beck München 2007) 527–36.

Select Documents

• Bartik v Russia (ECtHR) Judgment of 21 December 2006.
• Baumann v France (ECtHR) Reports 2001-V 207.
• Case C–135/99 Ursula Elsen v Bundesversicherung für Angestellte [2000] ECR I-10409.
• Case C–184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193.
• Case C–274/96 Criminal Proceedings against Horst Bickel and Ulrich Franz [1998] ECR I-7637.
• Case C–356/98 Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] ECR I-2623.
• Case C–357/98 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom [2000] ECR I-9265.
• Case C–378/97 Criminal Proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeck [1999] ECR I-6207.
• Case C–413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091.
• Case C–85/96 MarÍa MartÍnez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691.
• Case of Piermont v France (ECtHR) Series A No 314.
• Case of Tatishvili v Russia (ECtHR) Judgment of 22 February 2007.
• Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Unions and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member State [2004] OJ L158/77.
• Guzzardi v Italy (ECtHR) Series A No 39.
• Labita v Italy (ECtHR) Reports 2000-IV 99.
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136.
• Oliviera v the Netherlands (ECtHR) Reports 2002-IV 193.
• Schüsse an der Berliner Mauer I Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Supreme Court] (3 November 1992) 39 Entscheidungen des Bundsgerichtshofes in Strafsachen 1.
• Schüsse an der Berliner Mauer 1972 Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Supreme Court] (26 July 1994) 40 Entscheidungen des Bundsgerichtshofes in Strafsachen 241.
• Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v Germany (ECtHR) Reports 2001-II 409.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 24/1977’ (30 July 1981) HRC Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol (2nd to 16th Sessions), 83.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 263/1987, M. González del Rio v. Peru’ (28 October 1992) GAOR 48th Session Supp 40, 17.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 456/1991, Ismet Celepli v. Sweden’ (18 July 1994) GAOR 49th Session Supp 40 vol 2, 165.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 492/1992,Lauri Peltonen v. Finland’ (21 July 1994) GAOR 49th Session Supp 40 vol 2, 238.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 505/1992, Kéténquéré Ackla v. Togo’ (25 March 1996) GAOR 51st Session Supp 40 vol 2, 57.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 538/1993; Charles E. Stewart v. Canada’ (1 November 1996) GAOR 52nd Session Supp 40 vol 2, 47.
• UN HRC ‘Communication No. 883/1998, Karker v. France’ (26 October 2000) GAOR 56th Session Supp 40 vol 2, 144.
• UN HRC ‘General Comment No 15 (The positions of aliens under the Covenant)’ (11 April 1986) GAOR 41st Session Supp 40, 117.
• UN HRC ‘General Comment No 27 (Art. 12)’ (02 November 1999) GAOR 55th Session Supp 40 vol 1, 108.