PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture THE CAT COMMITTEE INTERIM MEASURES CRITERIA The CAT Committee has developed some formal and substantive criteria applied by the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures in granting or not requests for interim measures:331 Timely submission of the request: at any time after the receipt of a complaint, the Committee, a Working Group, or the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures may transmit to the State concerned a request for interim measures.332 The basic admissibility criteria contained in article 22 of the CAT Convention, paragraphs 1 to 5 have to be fulfilled (see Section 2.1.1 of this Handbook). The exhaustion of domestic remedies does not need to be fulfilled if the only remedies available to the complainant are without suspensive effect. As for substantive criteria, a complaint must have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. In this regard, the CAT Committee indicates that, “In cases concerning imminent expulsion or extradition where a complaint failed to establish a prima facie case with a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits that would allow the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures to conclude that the alleged victim would suffer irreparable harm in the event of his or her deportation, the complainant is requested in writing to confirm his or her interest in having his or her communication considered by the Committee, despite the rejection, by the Rapporteur, of the respective request for interim measures”.333 2.2.2 Legal Status of Interim Measures Given the quasi-judicial status of the HRC and the CAT Committee, it may seem doubtful that interim measures are legally binding upon States. However, where a State has accepted the competence of the HRC or CAT to receive and consider individual communications, it surely must comply with any procedures that enable the mechanism to function. Where a request for an interim measure is not respected, the Committee is prevented from fulfilling its role and the individual complaints process is rendered meaningless.334 For example, in Piandong v. The Philippines, the HRC issued a request that the execution of three men not be carried out while their complaint regarding their death sentences was under consideration. The three men were executed despite that request. The HRC responded by stating that: Having been notified of the communication, the State party breaches its obligations under the Protocol, if it proceeds to execute the alleged victims before the 331 332 333 334 Report of the Committee Against Torture, (2013) UN Doc. A/68/44, para. 109. CAT Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 114.1. Report of the Committee Against Torture, (2013) UN Doc. A/68/44, para. 110. “When States accept the competence of an international enforcement organ to consider individual petitions they commit themselves to support the petition procedure. The de jure right to petition international bodies must not be nullified by the State’s de facto act or failure to act. The right to petition is a nullity if the participation in the proceedings has died or can be intimidated into withdrawing a complaint”, Pasqualucci (2005), p. 49. 105