PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture such a time lapse should be regarded as an abuse of the right of submission, which renders the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.203 In Kalamiotis v. Greece, the State party claimed that the communication should be considered an abuse of the right of submission because it was lodged some three years after the judicial authorities decided not to press charges against the police officers accused. The Committee, recalling that there are “no fixed time limits for the submission of communications under the Optional Protocol”, considered that “the delay in this case was not so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of the right of submission”.204 2.1.2 How to Submit a Complaint to the HRC and the CAT Committee Individual complaints, also referred to as individual ‘communications’ or ‘petitions’ can be submitted under the OP to the ICCPR and Article 22 of the CAT regarding alleged violations by States parties of their obligations under the respective treaties with respect to particular individuals. Individual complaints to the Human Rights Committee and to the Committee Against Torture must be directed to the following contact details: Petitions and Inquiries Section205 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Fax: + 41 22 917 90 22 Email: petitions@ohchr.org A complaint regarding an allegation of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be sent to both Committees at the same time. Therefore, an individual must choose which treaty body to submit the complaint to.206 The treaty body to which the complainant wishes to send the complaint must be clearly specified. A complaint must be in writing, legible, preferably typed and signed. It is not compulsory to send a hard copy by post; a complaint can be sent electronically. It should be scanned and attached to an email addressed to the OHCHR Petitions and Inquiries Section (see contact details above).207 203 HRC, Gobin v. Mauritius, Comm. No. 787/1997, para. 6.3. Five dissenting members of the HRC claimed that the majority decision improperly introduced a “preclusive time limit” to the Optional Protocol. 204 HRC, Kalamiotis v. Greece, Comm. No. 1486/2006, para. 6.5. 205 Also usually referred to as Petitions Unit or Petitions Team. 206 See Section 2.1.3(b). 207 UN Fact Sheet No. 7, Rev. 2 (2013), “Individual Complaint Procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Treaties”, p. 4 available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ FactSheet7Rev.2.pdf. 77