ABSTRACT
The scope of the pronouncement of the Committee on an individual communication is therefore wider than the pronouncement of the Commission in an interstate situation. The criticism mounted by some authors of the weakness of the word 'views' may prove to be unjustified. The views of the Human Rights Committee gain their authority from their inner qualities of impartiality, objectiveness and soberness. Such co-operation cannot be considered as confined to the procedure leading to the adoption of the views of the Committee, but must extend logically to include the views themselves. Between its thirty-ninth and fiftieth sessions, the Committee considered follow-up information on a confidential basis. Thus, periodic reports on follow-up activities were not made public and debates on follow-up matters took place in closed meetings. The 1996 Report of the Committee shows the determination of the Committee to develop the follow-up procedure into a really meaningful weapon for improving compliance with Covenant standards.
