Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2619/2015 would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of a communication and in the expression of its Views. 15 It is up to the Committee to determine whether a case should be registered.16 6.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible since it was submitted to the Committee by Marina Adamovich, the wife of Mr Statkevich, without a power of attorney to present his interests before the Committee. However, it has been the long-standing practice of the Committee to allow relatives to bring proceedings for alleged victims, who have died, disappeared or been prevented for other reasons from bringing a communication or designating a representative. 17 In this respect, the Committee recalls that rule 96 (b) of its rules of procedure provides that a communication should normally be submitted by the individual personally or by that individual’s representative, but that a communication submitted on behalf of an alleged victim may, however, be accepted when it appears that the individual in question is unable to submit the communication personally.18 In the present case, the Committee notes that the alleged victim was being detained at the time of submission of the communication. The Committee also notes the author’s explanation, that the actions of the State party prevented Ms. Adamovich from obtaining written authorization from Mr. Statkevich, since he was not allowed to see family until six months after his arrest. Furthermore, prison officials confiscated all of his incoming mail and refused to send his outgoing mail (see para. 5.1 above). In the circumstances, the failure to provide a power of attorney cannot be attributable to the alleged victim or to his relatives. The Committee further recalls that, where it is impossible for the victim to authorize the communication, the Committee has considered a close personal relationship to the alleged victim, such as family ties, as a sufficient link to justify an author acting on behalf of the alleged victim. 19 In the present case, at the time of the submission of the communication, Mr. Statkevich was in incommunicado detention, with limited access or no access at all to his family and counsel. The State party did not provide any information neither on the conditions of detention of the author’s husband nor on his access to his family and lawyers. In view of the information on file, the Committee notes that the complaint was submitted on behalf of the alleged victim by his wife, who has presented a duly signed power of attorney for the counsels to represent them before the Committee. The Committee therefore considers that the author is justified by reason of close family connection in acting on behalf of Mr. Statkevich. 6.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible since it was submitted to the Committee by third parties which are not under the jurisdiction of Belarus but of a third country and not by the alleged victim himself. It also notes that it has been its longstanding practice that authors may designate representatives of their choice, not only to receive correspondence, but to represent them before the Committee. The Committee states that none of the provisions of the Optional Protocol or the Rules of procedure prohibit representation by a legal entity. Also the Committee notes that the Optional Protocol (articles 1 and 2) applies the requirement of “subject to State party jurisdiction” only in relation to the victims of human rights violations. The Rules of procedure make no provision for such issue concerning legal representation by foreign legal 15 16 17 18 19 See, e.g., communications Nos. 1867/2009, 1936/2010, 1975/2010, 1977/2010, 1978/2010, 1979/2010, 1980/2010, 1981/2010 and 2010/2010, Pavel Levinov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, para. 8.2; and communication No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000, para. 5.1. See communication No. 2201/2012, Tyvanchuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 26 March 2018, para. 5.2. See communication No. 2586/2015, Zakharenko v. Belarus, inadmissibility decision of 17 Mar 2017, para. 6.3. See also communication No. 1355/2005, X. v. Serbia, inadmissibility decision of 26 March 2007, para. 6.3. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/33/40), para. 580. See also, inter alia, communications No. 5/1977, Bazzano v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 15 August 1979, para. 5; No. 29/1978, E. B. v. S, decision on admissibility adopted on 14 August 1979; No. 43/1979, Drescher v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 July 1983, para. 3. 7