the right of submission, incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant, lack of competence by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, preclusion because of a State party’s reservation, or simultaneous examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. From the end of the forty-fifth session until the end of the period under review, the Special Rapporteurs transmitted 35 new communications to the States parties concerned requesting information or observations relevant to the question of admissibility. 11. Volume 3 covers sessions thirty-three to thirty-nine and contains: four interlocutory decisions – two decisions requesting interim measures of protection and two decisions to deal jointly with communications under rule 88; one decision in reversal of admissibility; 16 decisions declaring a communication inadmissible; and 27 Views adopted during that period.d 12. The current volume contains 11 decisions declaring the communication inadmissible, including 1 decision requesting interim measures of protection under rule 86, and 22 Views under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol. 16. Another mechanism, the office of Special Rapporteur for Follow-up of Views established at the Committee’s thirty-ninth session in July 1990 on the basis of the legal principle of “implied powers” recognized by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion in the Case of Certain Expenses (ICJ Reports, 1962), acquired greater visibility. In view of the general lack of knowledge regarding State compliance with the Committee’s Views, the Special Rapporteur attempted to enter into dialogue with the State party on measures taken. In addition, in a number of Views contained in the current volume, the Committee requested the State party explicitly to report back within 90 days on progress made in this regard. Since it began to discuss follow-up matters in 1990, the Committee has considered follow-up information on a confidential basis from its fortyfirst session onwards, hence at all the sessions contained in this volume. 13. In the case of decisions relating to communications declared inadmissible or on which action has been discontinued, the names of the author(s) and of the alleged victim(s) are replaced by letters or initials. In the case of interlocutory decisions, including decisions declaring a communication admissible, the names of the author(s), the alleged victim(s) and the State party concerned may also be deleted. 14. Communications under the Optional Protocol are numbered consecutively, indicating the year of registration (e.g. No. 1/1976, No. 415/1990). 15. During the period under review, there was an enormous increase in the Committee’s caseload. The office of Special Rapporteur on New Communications, which had been established at the thirty-fifth session in 1989 under rule 91 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, was amended at the forty-second session in July 1991 to cope with the new circumstances. Under the revised mandate, the Special Rapporteur was enabled to issue requests for interim protection under rule 86 (important in view of the steady increase in communications during the period under review from Jamaican nationals on death row) and could henceforth recommend that communications be declared inadmissible. In particular, the Special Rapporteur could recommend inadmissibility ratione materiae, personae or temporis, notably, but not exclusively, on grounds of an author’s lack of standing to submit a communication, insufficient substantiation of allegations, abuse of 17. The new format of decisions on admissibility and Views adopted at its thirtyseventh session in 1989, which was designed to achieve greater precision and brevity, continued to be followed during the period under review. 18. An important development in terms of jurisprudence was the steady increase in the number of individual opinions appended by members of the Committee to decisions on admissibility (rule 92(3) of the rules of procedure) or Views (rule 94(3)). It is particularly noteworthy that some members appended a joint individual opinion, whether concurring or dissenting. In the present volume six opinions were written at the stage of admissibility and nineteen individual opinions were appended to the Views, including three times a joint individual opinion of four members. d International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol (Thirty-third to thirty ninth sessions), New York and Geneva, 2002 (CCPR/C/OP/3). 3