INTRODUCTION 1. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto were adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976. 2. In accordance with article 28 of the Covenant, the States parties established the Human Rights Com­ mittee on 20 September 1976. 3. Under the Optional Protocol, individuals who claim that any of their rights set forth in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit written communications to the Human Rights Committee for consideration. Of the 87 States that have acceded to or ratified the Cov­ enant, 42 have accepted the competence of the Commit­ tee to receive and consider individual complaints by rati­ fying or acceding to the Optional Protocol.* These States are Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, the Central African Republic, Col­ ombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gambia, Iceland, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia. No com­ munication can be received by the Committee if it con­ cerns a State party to the Covenant which is not also a party to the Optional Protocol. 4. Under the terms of the Optional Protocol, the Committee may consider a communication only if cer­ tain conditions of admissibility are satisfied. These con­ ditions are set out in articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Op­ tional Protocol and restated in rule 90 in the Commit­ tee's provisional rules of procedure, pursuant to which the Committee shall ascertain: (a) That the communication is not anonymous and that it emanates from an individual, or individuals, sub­ ject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Protocol; (b) That the individual claims to be a victim of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Normally, the communication should be submitted by the individual himself or by his representative; the Committee may, however, accept for consideration a communication submitted on behalf of an alleged victim when it appears that the victim is unable to submit the communication himself; (c) That the communication is not an abuse of the right to submit a communication under the Protocol; id) That the communication is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant; * As at 30 June 1988. (e) That the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; (/) That the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 5. Under rule 86 of its provisional rules of pro­ cedure, the Committee may, prior to the forwarding of its final views on a communication, inform the State party on whether "interim measures" of protection are desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. A request for interim measures, however, does not imply a determination of the merits of the communication. The Committee has requested such interim measures in a number of cases, e.g. where the carrying out of a death sentence or the expulsion or extradition of a person, appeared to be imminent. 6. With respect to the question of burden of proof, the Committee has established that such burden cannot rest alone on the author of a communication, especially if one considers that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence, and that frequently the State party alone is in possession of the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its authorities. 7. The Committee started its work under the Op­ tional Protocol at its second session in 1977. From that session to the thirty-second session in the spring of 1988, 288 communications relating to alleged viol­ ations by 26 States parties were placed before it for con­ sideration. The status of these communications is as follows: (o) Concluded by adoption of views under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 83 (b) Concluded by decision of inadmissibility 63 (c) Discontinued or withdrawn 52 (d) Declared admissible, not yet concluded... 20 (e) Pending at pre-admissibility stage 70 8. It is useful to note that the Committee is neither a court nor a body with a quasi-judicial mandate, like the organs created under another international Human Rights instrument, the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e., the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights). Still, the Committee applies the provisions of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol in a judicial spirit and, performs functions similar to those of the European Commission of Human Rights, in as much as the consideration of applications from individuals is concerned. Its decisions on the merits (of a communi­ cation) are, in principle, comparable to the reports of the European Commission, non-binding recommen­ dations. The two systems differ, however, in that the Optional Protocol does not provide explicitly for