measures of protection.8 Such events, which took place while the author was on death row, heightened the mental anxiety and helplessness suffered, with detrimental effect on his mental health and thus violated article 7. measures of compensation, especially for damage resulting from fundamental rights protected under articles 6, 7 and 14. Accordingly, it has breached its obligation to provide effective remedies in article 2, paragraph 3. 5.10 Concerning the State party’s contention that adequate remedies are in place, the author submits that the system lacks effective remedies for accused persons in detention, and that the Supreme Court decision represents only partial reparation, providing no redress for the violations of his rights to be free, for example, from torture or unlawful detention. The Supreme Court decision itself cannot be considered as a form of compensation since it only ended an imminent violation of his right to life, for which no compensation would have been possible. The Court did not order compensation, restitution of legal fees, reparation nor an investigation. The author’s mental injury and suffering, as well as damage to reputation and way of life, including stigmatism as a child rapist/paedophile in the United Kingdom, remain without remedy. 5.13 Finally, the author argues that such nonjudicial remedies as may be available are not effective because of the extremely serious nature of the violations, and inappropriate in terms of quantum. In the first place, if, as the State party contends, there is no record of the author’s complaints to the Philippine Human Rights Commission, this underscores the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of this mechanism, especially in terms of protecting rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In any case, the Commission simply provides financial assistance, rather than compensation, and such a non-judicial and noncompensatory remedy cannot be considered an effective and adequate remedy for violations of articles 6 and 7. 5.14 Secondly, the administrative compensation mechanism awarding the author some compensation cannot be considered a substitute for a judicial civil remedy. The Committee has observed that “administrative remedies cannot be deemed to constitute adequate and effective remedies within the meaning of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in the event of particular serious violations of human rights”;11 rather, access to court is required. In any event, the compensation provided is inadequate in terms of article 14, paragraph 6, and the inability to enter the country renders the remedy ineffective in practice. Even though the P40,000 amount awarded was the maximum amount permissible, it is a token and symbolic amount, even allowing for differences between countries in levels of compensation. After deducting the immigration fees charged, some P18,260 (US$343) remained. 5.11 Far from receiving appropriate reparation for the violation suffered, the author was in fact doubly punished by having to pay immigration fees and by being excluded from entering the Philippines, both issues subsequently unresolved despite representations to the Philippine authorities The exclusion also prevents the author from effectively using any remedies available in the Philippines, even if they were appropriate, which he denies. In particular, the civil remedies the State party invokes are neither “available” nor “effective” if he cannot enter the country, and therefore need not be exhausted. 5.12 In any event, according to the author, the State party’s domestic law denies remedies in his author’s case. The Constitution requires the State’s consent to be sued,9 which has neither expressly nor implicitly been given in this case. Under statutory law, the State is only responsible for the wrongful conduct of ‘special agents’ (a person specially commissioned to perform a particular task). Public officials acting within the scope of their duties are personally liable for damage caused (but may invoke immunity if the suit affects the property, rights or interests of the State). Thus, the State is not liable for illegal acts that are ultra vires and committed in violation of an individual’s rights and liberties.10 The author thus submits there are no available civil remedies to redress adequately the wrongs caused, and that the State party has failed to adopt adequate 8 Piandiong et al. v. The Philippines No. 869/1999, Views adopted on 19 October 2000. 9 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party contends that the author could lodge a complaint with the Philippine Human Rights Commission and a civil claim before the courts. The Committee observes that the author did in fact Case Article XVI, Section 3. 10 11 C. Sangco: Philippine Law on Torts and Damages (1994). Bautista Arellana v. Colombia Case No. 563/1993, Views adopted on 27 October 1995. 119