Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies The author must also confirm that, in accordance with Article 5(2)(a) of the OP, the complaint is not being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement.230 The author must also be aware of other reasons for inadmissibility, and address them if they are relevant. For example, if the alleged violation takes place before the date for which the relevant individual complaints mechanism came into force for the relevant State, the author must explain why there is a continuing violation on the facts of the case.231 If the alleged violation takes place outside the territory of the relevant State, the author must explain why the State should be held responsible for those extraterritorial actions.232 Many cases before the treaty bodies have concerned allegations that have been examined by national courts and found to be not proven. For example, a person may claim that he or she was tortured by police, and may seek to prove that allegation before a court, which ultimately finds that the allegation is unfounded. Due to the need to exhaust domestic remedies, this scenario has arisen often. In general, the treaty bodies are very unlikely to overrule the decision of a national court if that court has addressed the substance of the complaint. For example, the HRC stated in R.M. v. Finland: The Committee … is not an appellate court and … allegations that a domestic court has committed errors of fact or law do not in themselves raise questions of violation of the Covenant.233 The Committees’ fact finding processes compare poorly with those of national courts, which have the benefit of seeing witnesses and assessing their demeanor, and hearing oral evidence. The Committees will generally only ‘overrule’ a national court’s decision if it can be established that the court’s decision is clearly arbitrary or manifestly unjust, or has suffered from a procedural defect (e.g. the judge had a conflict of interest). Therefore, if an author must challenge a local court decision in order to have his or her complaint upheld, the author should explain how: a. The court did not address the substance of the complaint before the treaty body.234 That has been the case in non-refoulement cases where judicial review did not include an examination on the merits of the complainant’s claim (addressing if the person would or would not be in 230 231 232 233 234 82 See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para. 28 and Section 2.1.1(d). Section 2.1.1(b)(ii). Section 2.1.1.(b)(iii). HRC, R.M. v. Finland, Comm. No. 301/1988, para. 6.4. This argument could in turn raise issues regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Therefore, the author should explain why the substance of the international complaint was not addressed by