Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies B. ADMISSIBILITY 26. It is submitted that this communication satisfies all of the admissibility requirements under the ICCPR. 27. X ratified the ICCPR on 12 January 1992, and ratified the Optional Protocol on 28 September 1996. The Optional Protocol came into force on 28 December 1996. The facts alleged clearly took place after this date, so the Human Rights Committee is competent to examine the present case. Furthermore, all of the alleged facts took place within the territorial jurisdiction of X. 28. This complaint is not being examined (and has never been examined) by another procedure of international investigation and settlement, and thus complies with the requirements of article 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol. 29. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies (article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol), the author’s attempts to prompt an investigation by the Chief Prosecutor into his ill-treatment, with a view to obtaining a remedy, are detailed directly above (paragraphs 19-25). 30. The author, in accordance with the procedure set out in Part VI the Human Rights (Investigation) Act (see Annex 23), appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to drop the investigation to the Court of Appeal (see Annex 41 for statement of claim). The Court of Appeal dismissed the case without giving detailed reasons on 12 November 2005 (see Annex 42). 31. The author sought leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal to the highest court in X’s legal system, the Supreme Court of X (see Annex 43 for statement of claim in Supreme Court). Leave was refused by the Court on 13 April 2006 (see Annex 44). With the refusal of leave to appeal by the highest court in X, the author has exhausted domestic remedies. 32. An application to court for a civil claim to damages is ineffective because, according to the law of X, the civil courts have no powers to identify those responsible for crimes and to hold them responsible and accountable. There are insurmountable hurdles to a civil claim if the perpetrators cannot be identified in the proceedings. Therefore, an application for a civil remedy is neither an adequate nor an available remedy for the purposes of admissibility. 33. The author therefore asserts that this communication complies with the requirements of article 5 of the Optional Protocol. C. DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ICCPR 34. Article 7 of the ICCPR states that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 35. General Comment 20 of the Human Rights Committee states that: The aim of the provision of article 7 of the [ICCPR] is to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual. It is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through the legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity…The prohibition in article 7 relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim. 36. It is submitted that the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee regarding article 7 should be influenced by the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture. 37. The author submits that state X has breached the author’s rights under article 7 of the ICCPR in the following ways: 114