CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
The State party’s lack of cooperation
5.1
The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that there are no legal grounds for
consideration of the author’s communication, insofar as it was registered in violation of the
provisions of the Optional Protocol; that it has no obligation to recognize the Committee’s
rules of procedure, nor the Committee’s interpretation of the provisions of the Optional
Protocol; and that any decision taken by the Committee on the present communication will
be considered “invalid” by its authorities.
5.2
The Committee recalls that under article 39, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, it is
empowered to establish its own rules of procedure, which States parties have agreed to
recognize. It further observes that, by adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the
Covenant recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights
set forth in the Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in a State’s
adherence to the Optional Protocol is the undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in
good faith, so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications and, after
examination thereof, to forward its Views to the State party and the individual (art. 5,
paras. 1 and 4). It is incompatible with those obligations for a State party to take any action
that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the
communication, and in the expression of its Views.5 It is up to the Committee to determine
whether a communication should be registered.
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not
the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
6.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the
Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
6.3
In the context of the author’s claim under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant,
the Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the
communication on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author has not
appealed to the Prosecutor’s Office under the supervisory review procedure. In that regard,
the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition for supervisory
review to a Prosecutor’s Office, allowing court decisions that have taken effect to be
reviewed, does not constitute a remedy which has to be exhausted for the purposes of
article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.6 In the meantime, however, the
Committee notes that in the present case the author has not submitted any information or
documents to demonstrate that he has ever complained at the domestic level about the
alleged inhuman or degrading conditions during his detention on 25 and 26 March 2008,
and with what result. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any further information
on file, the Committee declares thatt part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to
article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
5
6
See, for example, communication No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted
on 19 October 2000, para. 5.1.
See communication No. 1873/2009, Alekseev v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 25
October 2013, para. 8.4.
5