CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 representation”. The complainants add that the Appeal Court and the other judicial authorities have not specified which body would, in fact, be the appropriate forum to provide them with effective access to justice. They are of the view that the Court’s interpretation is inconsistent with international standards and the legal representation services offered by the federal public defender system. The complainants are also of the view that the Court’s interpretation impedes their access to justice and precludes the proper investigation of the disappearance and death of their brother. 5.4 The complainants note that, in accordance with the Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People and article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, everyone must have the right to simple and prompt recourse and that any law or measure that obstructs or prevents persons from availing themselves of such recourse is a violation of the right of access to the courts. They believe that the remedies that are available to them are not effective and that the corresponding proceedings have exceeded all reasonable time limits. They contend that they have been subjected to ongoing revictimization by those who should ensure that they have access to their rights. The complainants therefore request that the Committee find the present communication admissible. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 With regard to the provisions of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, namely the requirement to ascertain that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the Committee notes that the same facts were the subject of a communication submitted by the same complainants to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. That communication resulted in Views, adopted on 11 March 2016, in which it was found that the State party had violated the rights set out in articles 1, 2, 12 (1), 17, 18, 20 and 24 (1)–(3) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in relation to Mr. Yrusta; and of articles 12 (1), 18, 20 and 24 (1)–(3) in relation to the complainants. The Committee observes that, in the Views, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances found that the complainants’ claims relating to the transfer of Mr. Yrusta without his consent, the acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, his death and the investigation thereof did not fall within the competence ratione materiae of the Committee. 5 Accordingly, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances did not consider those claims. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, insofar as the same facts, the same parties and the same substantive rights have not been examined under such procedures. 6 In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers itself competent to examine the communication. 6.3 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments regarding the possibility for the complainants to act as private criminal plaintiffs, by being represented by legal aid centres of the Province of Santa Fe or by independent lawyers retained under agreements between the provincial authorities and each of the bar associations. However, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ claim that domestic remedies have been exhausted, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. In particular, the complainants state that they have exhausted all judicial remedies available to seek standing as private criminal plaintiffs in the investigation into the causes of Mr. Yrusta’s death being conducted by the Sixth Bench of the Santa Fe Criminal Investigation Court. The Committee notes that the complainants’ inability to take part in the proceedings has prevented them from requesting investigative measures that could be effective and from adducing specific evidence that could contribute to the investigation. In addition, the Committee notes that the 5 6 8 Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013), para. 8.4. Committee against Torture, N.B. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/56/D/577/2013), para. 8.2. GE.19-01524