PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture 2.1 Individual Complaints Procedure In Part II, we address the most important aspects of the processes relating to the individual complaints procedures under both the ICCPR and the CAT. 2.1.1 Admissibility Criteria Any successful complaint must satisfy the admissibility criteria of the respective treaty. The admissibility criteria under the ICCPR and the CAT are almost identical. Differences in interpretation, or possible differences, are highlighted in the commentary below. (a) Standing Rules Article 1 of the OP to the ICCPR requires that the complaint relate to one or more violations of a particular victim’s rights under that treaty. The same requirement is specified in Article 22(1) of the CAT. It is therefore not permissible to bring a complaint unless it concerns an actual violation of an identified person’s rights under the relevant treaty. For example, it is not permissible for person A to submit a complaint regarding the appalling conditions in a prison if A has never been an inmate of that prison, unless A is authorized to do so on behalf of one of X’s inmates or former inmates.62 It is not permissible to challenge a law or policy in the abstract, without an actual victim.63 The victim must be an individual. That is, he or she must be a natural person, rather than an artificial person such as a corporation, a trade union or a non-governmental organisations (NGO).64 In General Comment No. 15, the HRC held that ICCPR rights must be extended to: All individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves under the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party.65 Therefore, one may submit complaints against a State party under the treaties’ individual complaints mechanisms even if one is not a national of that State. The same applies for the submission of complaints before the CAT Committee. It is not possible to submit a complaint anonymously. The relevant Committee, however, will normally agree, if requested, to suppress the name of the alleged victim in published documents. It is not possible, however, to keep the name of 62 63 64 65 See Section 2.1.2(b). See HRC, Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian Women v. Mauritius, Comm. No. 35/1978, para. 9.2 See, e.g., HRC, Mariategui v. Argentina, Comm. No. 1371/05. HRC, General Comment No.31, para. 10. 49