Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies – With regard to the ICCPR, the date at which the OP enters into force for the State. This date is three months after the State ratifies or accedes to the OP. – With regard to the CAT, the date at which the Article 22 declaration enters into force for the State. Therefore, if a violation, such as an act of torture, occurs prior to the relevant date, any complaint in respect of that violation is inadmissible. This is known as the “ratione temporis” rule. Importantly, the respective relevant dates relate to the dates at which adherence to the relevant individual complaints mechanism comes into force, rather than the dates at which the respective treaty comes into force. For example, a complaint under the OP will be inadmissible if the violation occurs prior to the entry into force for the State of the OP, even if that date is after entry into force for the State of the ICCPR. See Table 1 above for the dates of entry into force of the individual complaints mechanisms of the ICCPR and the CAT. There is one exception to the ratione temporis rule. A complaint may be admissible if it concerns a violation that began prior to the relevant date, if the violation continues after that relevant date,85 or if the violation continues to have effects which in themselves violate the treaty.86 In Könye and Könye v. Hungary, the HRC held that: A continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation, after the entry into force of the OP, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations of the State Party.87 It needs to be noted that torture is not as such considered a continuing violation once the torture itself has ended, even if the effects are ongoing,88 as it is considered with an enforced disappearance (where the effects last for as long as the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person remain unknown).89 Nevertheless, procedural obligations stemming from the absolute prohibition of torture, namely the duty to investigate and the duty to provide adequate reparation to the victims (see Parts III and IV below) are enforceable and may, thus, be subjected to scrutiny after the events took place. In Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, the insults, beatings and demolition 85 86 87 88 89 90 54 For example, if one is imprisoned in appalling conditions prior to the relevant date, but the incarceration in those conditions continues after the relevant date, one may submit a complaint in respect of those conditions, claiming a violation from the relevant date. See HRC, Lovelace v. Canada, Comm. No. 24/1977, para. 7.3; HRC, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, Comm. No. 1633/2007, para. 6.2. HRC, Könye and Könye v. Hungary, Comm. No. 520/92, para.6.4. See, inter alia, IACtHR, Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd v. Mexico, Judgment of 3 September 2004 (Preliminary Objections), para. 78. See Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Comment on enforced disappearance as a continuos crime, (2011) UN Doc. A/HRC/16/48, para. 39 (para. 1 of the General Comment). See also HRC, Yurich v. Chile, Comm. No. 1078/2002, para. 6.4. HRC, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, Comm. No. 1633/2007, para. 6.2.