CCPR/C/95/D/1334/2004 Page 13 APPENDIX Separate opinion of Committee members Sir Nigel Rodley and Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada We do not agree that Mr. Sa’di has been the victim of a self standing violation of article 19(2). On the other hand, we do consider he has been the victim of violation of article 27, read together with article 19. We find the Committee’s literalist reading of the right to receiving information and ideas is unconvincing. The Committee’s position would require it to treat every potential recipient of any information or ideas that have been improperly suffered under article 19 as a victim in the same way as the person having been prevented from expressing or imparting the information or ideas. Thus, it could find itself dealing with communication from every reader or viewer or listener of a medium of mass communication that has been improperly closed down or whose content has been improperly suppressed. This is not a ‘floodgates’ argument. Rather it is evident that its literalist approach may simply not be the most plausible interpretation of article 19(2). For us, this aspect of Mr. Sa’di’s complaint smacks of actio popularis. Moreover, it was simply unnecessary for the Committee to take this far-reaching position in the instant case. There is no disagreement that Mr. Sa’di was a victim of a violation of article 27, paragraph 2. Moreover, we believe that Mr. Sa’di is a victim of a violation of article 19 read together with article 27. This is because of the special nature of article 27 which envisages the enjoyment of rights by persons as members of minority communities. This should have been a sufficient finding for the Committee in this case. [signed] Sir Nigel Rodley [signed] Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada [Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] -----