4.7 The State party concedes that, during the investigation, the parents of the victim had first given and then revoked the power of attorney to a lawyer from the HLC, changed their statements, tried to obtain money from the suspected perpetrators in return for favourable statements and influenced the alleged victim in various ways, thus compromising the credibility of their evidence and prolonging the proceedings. As a result, the authorities have taken prompt measures to have the alleged victim and his five siblings removed from this “unhealthy family environment”. Steps were taken to ensure their rehabilitation and social integration. To that end, financial and material assistance was provided to the parents several times in 2003 and 2004. Following from the above, the State party believes that there is no violation of any of the rights contained in articles 7, 17, 24, paragraph 1, read alone or in conjunction with article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3. Deimbacher (formerly Radović), whom she had accused on national television of having sexually abused the child. By letter dated 19 December 2006, the author informed the Committee that this was upheld by the Belgrade District Court on 7 July 2006. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 93 of its rules and procedures, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol of the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 With regard to the author’s standing to represent the victim, 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. Where it is impossible for the victim to authorize the communication, for instance where the victim has been killed, had disappeared or is held incommunicado, the Committee has considered a close family connection to be a sufficient link to justify an author acting on behalf of an alleged victim. 11 However, it has not considered that an individual had standing to act on behalf of a personal friend or an employee where no authorization had been obtained from the victim.12 In this regard, the Committee recalls that it Author’s comments 5.1 By letter dated 11 September 2006, the author argues that it should be allowed standing to represent the victim before the Committee. It recalls that the circumstances of the case clearly demonstrate that the victim is unable to submit the communication personally, which is a situation provided for in rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. With regard to the State party’s argument that the link between the author and the victim is not as close as to qualify the former to act on the latter’s behalf, the author submits that while there is no biological link between itself and the victim, it acted as legal counsel for the victim and demonstrated a sustained willingness and ability to seek redress for the victim. Neither the parents, nor the legal guardian have acted in the best interests of the victim. 5.2 As for the State party’s argument that the author is neither the sole, not the most competent authority to determine the best interests of the victim, the author recalls that it has already submitted many communications before several human rights treaty bodies and that this experience cannot be compared with that of any other organization in Serbia. This renders the author qualified to assess the reasons for instigating proceedings from the point of view of any victim. In the present case, the victim’s interests are that those who sexually abused him should be punished. “has always taken a wide view of the right of alleged victims to be represented by counsel in submitting communications under the Optional Protocol. However, counsel acting on behalf of victims of alleged violations must show that they have real authorization from the victims (or their immediate family) to act on their 11 See for instance communication No. 5/1977, Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 15 August 1979, para. 5; and communication No. 1196/2003, Bourchef v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 1.1. 12 See communication No. 436/1990, Solís Palma v. Panama, Inadmissibility decision adopted on 18 July 1994, para. 5.2; and communication No. 16/1977, Mbenge v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March 1983, para. 5. See also communication No. 565/1993, R. and M.H. v. Italy, Inadmissibility decision adopted on 8 April 1994, para. 4.2. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication, the author reiterates its earlier arguments. It noted that W is the only person who has been willing to testify about all the circumstances of the incident and that, as a result, she has received many threats. On 13 March 2006, she was even found guilty by the Belgrade Second Municipal Court of defaming Miodrag 33