[UN]BOUND? A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE OF INTERIM MEASURES REQUESTS BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE.

In this article, we critically examine the nature and legal force of interim measures requests (IMRs) issued by the Human Rights Committee (HR Committee) in response to communications received under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP1). Despite the lack of express provisions in the Covenant or the Optional Protocol regarding the power of the HR Committee to issue IMRs or the obligation of States to comply with them, the HR Committee has established its own Rules of Procedure to issue purportedly binding IMRs in certain circumstances. This article is the first thorough examination of whether IMRs are binding and, if so, on what basis. We conclude that States parties must comply with IMRs in good faith under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, we note that this interpretation requires a forward-leaning approach that privileges the object and purposes of the ICCPR-OP1. The article contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding the legal nature and force of IMRs issued by the HR Committee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]