PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture Against this backdrop, the Committees will generally conduct a first assessment for admissibility purposes. However, in some cases, the Committees may consider that a decision addressing the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot or should preferably not be taken at the admissibility stage. In this context, the assessment will be joined to the merits. This was the case in Amirova v. Russian Federation, where the HRC decided to examine the claims about the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedies in the Chechen Republic at the merits phase, by reasoning as follows: [I]n the circumstances, the Committee considers that the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present communication is so closely linked to the merits of the case that it is inappropriate to determine it at the present stage of the proceedings and that it should be joined to the merits.121 i. Types of Remedies Complainants are generally expected to exhaust domestic judicial remedies. It is established jurisprudence of the HRC that the wording “all available domestic remedies”, within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the OP, “clearly refers in the first place to judicial remedies”.122 In this context, the HRC has established that: Authors must avail themselves of all judicial remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5.2(b) OP, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.123 In Vicente et al. v. Colombia, the HRC held that it is necessary to look at the nature of the alleged violation in order to ascertain whether a remedy is effective.124 In those cases involving allegations of torture and ill-treatment, administrative and disciplinary measures alone are unlikely to be considered either adequate or effective, given the grave nature of such acts.125 It is worth highlighting that the HRC has long established that remedies available to provide justice and redress 121 122 123 124 125 HRC, Amirov v. Russian Federation, Comm. No. 1447/2006, para. 10.4; see also HRC: Munaf v. Romania, Comm. No. 1539/2006, para. 7.5; Kalamiotis v. Greece, Comm. No. 1486/2006, para. 6.4: “[t]he Committee considers that the delays referred to by the State party and the manner in which the complaint was formulated are best dealt with when considering the merits of the case”. See HRC: R.T. v. France, Comm. No. 262/1987, decision of inadmissibility, para. 7.4; Schmidl v. Czech Republic, Comm. No. 1515/2006, decision of inadmissibility, para. 6.2; Katsaris v. Greece, Comm. No. 1558/2007, para. 6.5; Pavlyuchenkov v. Russian Federation, Comm. No. 1628/2007, para. 8.3. See HRC, P.L. v. Germany, Comm. No. 1003/2001, decision of inadmissibility, para. 6.5. HRC, Vicente et al. v. Colombia, Comm. No. 612/1995, para. 5.2. See also HRC: Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Comm. No. 778/97, para.6.2; Katsaris v. Greece, Comm. No. 1558/2007, para. 6.5; CAT Committee: Sahli v. Algeria, Comm. No. 341/2008, para. 8.5; Ben Salem v. Tunisia, Comm. No. 269/2005, para. 8.5. 61