Appendix Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3. of the Committee's rules of procedure concerning the Committee's views on communication Ho. 410/1990.. Parkanvi v. Hungary While the Covenant entered into force for Hungary QJI 23 March 1976, the Optional Protocol only entered into force on 7 December 1988. Part of the instant communication concerns the author's detention, which lasted from 3 September 1985 to 16 February 1987, i.e. prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Hungary. According to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, no communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a. State party to the Covenant/ which is not a party to the Protocol. A State party to the Covenant that becomes a party to the Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. According to article 25 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty or part of a treaty may be applied provisionally pending its entry into force if the negotiating States have so agreed. Wo such agreement about a provisional application of the Protocol for Hungary exists. Article 28 of the Vienna Convention, regarding non-retroactivity of treaties, provides clear guidance in this respecti it states that, unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party. The Committee's jurisprudence has developed in accordance with that provision. For example, in communication So. 457/1991 fh.I.E. v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) a/ the Committee observes that the Optional Protocol cannot be applied retroactively and concludes "that it is precluded rations temporis from examining the author's allegations". The instant case can be distinguished from the established jurisprudence of the Committee with regard to the application of the Optional Protocol ratione t6mP°ris in that Hungary has not objected to the competence of the Committee to consider those of the author's claims which relate to events that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Hungary. However, 1 do not agree with the majority's conclusion that the Committee in these specific circumstances is not precluded from examining the allegation, since I am of the opinion that the Committee is acting beyond its competence in doing so. The principles enshrined in article 28 of the Vienna Convention are well-established principles of international law; in most legal systems similar principles form the basis for the legal rules regulating contractual obligations. Their main objective is to create legal presumptions to facilitate the conclusion of treaties, rationalize their application and -323-