Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies A State party may request within two months that the issues of admissibility and merits be separated setting out the grounds that would render preferable a separate decision on the admissibility.289 The Special Rapporteur then considers whether to grant the request. The State party will generally be given an extension of time regarding its submissions on the merits if the Special Rapporteur agrees to separate the issues of admissibility and merits. Of course, such separation will mean that the process of deciding the complaint will take longer if it proceeds to the merits stage. In most cases, the issues are not separated, so the parties (i.e. the author and the States) are required to submit their observations on both admissibility and merits at the same time. The author will then have an opportunity to respond to the State’s submissions within a set time frame;290 in practice two months is generally the period established to comment on submissions made by the other party. All subsequent new arguments by either party are transmitted to the other party to give that party an opportunity to respond. The Special Rapporteur, the Working Group, or the Committees themselves may request further written responses from both the author and the State party within specified time limits under Rule 97(4) of the HRC’s Rules of Procedure or Rule 115(5) of the CAT Committee’s Rules. Eventually, the Committee concerned will decide that it has enough information to make its determinations. Though the relevant time limits are not always strictly enforced, it is in the interests of the author to comply if possible to avoid delay, or to avoid his or her response failing to reach the Committees in time. If compliance with timelines is difficult, it is advisable to warn the Committee of this circumstance. Once enough information has been received, the case is prepared by the Secretariat and the Case Rapporteur, who is a Committee member appointed to draft the decision regarding the relevant complaint. The Case Rapporteur’s draft is considered by the Working Group. The Working Group may accept or reject the Case Rapporteur’s conclusions regarding either the admissibility or (if relevant) the merits. iv. Admissibility In the case of the HRC, the Working Group, after considering the submissions of the parties regarding admissibility and the recommendations of the Case Rapporteur, may unanimously declare a case to be admissible. Unanimous agreement amongst the Working Group regarding inadmissibility is not decisive, but must be confirmed by the HRC, who may confirm it without formal discussion.291 If the Working Group cannot reach a unanimous decision regarding 289 HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 97(2); CAT Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 115(3). 290 HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 97(4) and (6); CAT, Rules of Procedure, Rule 115(4) and (5), Rule 117. 291 HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 93(3). 94