THIRD SESSION Communication No. 1/1976 Submitted by: A et al. in August 1976 Alleged victims: A et al. State party: S Date of decision on inadmissibility: 26 January 1978 (third session) Standing of authors to act on behalf of alleged vic­ tims—Sufficient link—Actio popularis—Submission to lACHR—Procedure under Economic and Social Council resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970—Submission to UNESCO procedure—Inad­ missibility ratione temporis—Domestic remedies finds that on the basis of the facts before it the com­ munication is inadmissible on this ground in regard to the violations alleged in respect of the following 11 of the authors of the communication: A et al. With regard to the alleged violations in respect of B, С and D, the State party submits that the Human Rights Committee cannot consider the communication as these cases have already been submitted to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee has ascertained that with regard to В and С [a] case ... was submitted to the Inter-American Commission on 8 February 1976, and with regard to D [two] cases ... were submitted to the Inter-American Commission on 8 February 1976 and in October 1976 respectively. These cases have been declared admissible by the Inter-American Commission under the special procedure governed by articles 53 to 57 of its Regula­ tions and the Human Rights Committee understands that they are still being examined under that procedure. Since the cases concerning В and С were submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights before 23 March 1976, the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for S, the Committee concludes that they do not concern the same matter which the Committee is competent to consider. It remains for the Human Rights Committee to ascertain in regard to the cases of D whether they concern the same matter as that submitted to the Human Rights Committee. Articles of Optional Protocol: I, 2 and 5 (2) (a) and (b) This is a communication submitted by 18 signatories on behalf of 1,194 alleged victims, including 14 of the signatories, containing a general description of alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights in S during the past few years, together with a brief description of the violations in respect of each of the alleged victims. The Committee has studied this communication in order to determine the extent of its admissibility under the Optional Protocol. In general the Committee observes that the communication is primarily a com­ plaint about the situation in S during the past few years. The Protocol was not intended to deal with situations as such, but with individual complaints. The first question which arises is the standing of the authors of the communication to act on behalf of those alleged victims who are not signatories. The authors have explained that these persons are in S or elsewhere where they are not "at hberty" to act for themselves. The Committee notes however that its competence under the Protocol is to receive communications "from individuals ... who claim to be victims of a violation". There are of course circumstances in which one in­ dividual must be regarded as having the necessary standing to act on behalf of another. But with regard to the present communication the Committee cannot ac­ cept on the information before it that there is a suffi­ cient link to enable the signatories of the communica­ tion to act on behalf of the alleged victims who are not signatories to the communication. The Protocol grants to all the individuals concerned the right to submit com­ munications, but does not, on the other hand, allow for an actio popularis. With regard to the alleged violations in respect of В and С the State party submits that the Human Rights Committee cannot consider the communication as these cases have already been submitted to the United Na­ tions. The Committee finds however that the United Nations has no procedure of international investigation or settlement, as referred to in article 5 (2) (a) of the Protocol, relevant to these cases. In particular, the pro­ cedure under resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970, adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, is concerned with the examination of situations which reveal " a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fun­ damental freedoms". In the view of the Committee, this procedure is not concerned with the examination of the same matter, within the meaning of article 5 (2) (a) of the Protocol, as a claim by an individual under the Pro­ tocol. Another factor which the Committee must take into account in considering the admissibility of a com­ munication is that, as a rule, the Committee can only consider an alleged violation of human rights occurring after the date of the entry into force of the Covenant and the Protocol for the State party concerned, unless the alleged violation is one which, although occurring before that date, continues or has effects which themselves constitute violations after that date. The relevant date for S is 23 March 1976. The Committee With regard to the alleged violation in respect of D, the State party submits that the Human Rights Commit­ tee cannot consider the communciation, as this case has already been submitted to the United Nations Edu17