Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies the HRC or the CAT Committee eventually will decide they have enough information to decide the case. The case will then be referred to the Working Group and/ or the Case Rapporteur to draft recommendations on the merits. The Working Group can accept or reject the recommendations of the Case Rapporteur, and the HRC or the CAT Committee can accept or reject the recommendations of the Working Group. All debates regarding the merits proceed in closed meetings. Ultimately, the decision of the majority will prevail. However, members commonly append separate and dissenting opinions to the majority decision. The final decision (or “views”), including any separate or dissenting opinions, is transmitted to both the author and the State party under Article 5(4) of the OP, or 22(7) of the CAT, and made public. If the HRC finds that a person’s rights have been violated, the HRC will request the State to inform them within 180 days (from the date of the transmission of the decision) of the remedy provided to the victim. The final views may recommend a particular remedy, such as compensation, repeal of particular legislation, the release of a person, or may leave the determination of a remedy to the State party.289 Likewise, under Rule 118(5) of the CAT Committee, the State party concerned will be invited to inform the CAT Committee within a specific time period, generally 90 days,299 of the action it has taken pursuant to the recommendations contained in the findings of the decision. vi. Follow-up of Views The HRC and the CAT Committee are not courts. Their final views are not strictly binding on a State. However, the HRC and the CAT Committee are the authoritative interpreter of the ICCPR and the CAT respectively, which are binding on States parties. Non-compliance by States parties with Committees’ views is evidence of a bad faith attitude with regard to those obligations.300 Both Committees have adopted a procedure to “follow-up” its findings of violations in the context of the individual complaints procedure. The follow-up process serves to place sustained pressure on recalcitrant States, and is discussed in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. vii. Miscellaneous Issues The process is confidential until a final decision is made (either regarding inadmissibility or merits). Pursuant to the HRC Rules of Procedure, authors are generally allowed to make their submissions public, though they may be requested to 298 See “How to Complain about Human Rights Treaty Violations: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Description”, para. 2, available at: http://www.bayefsky.com/complain/10_ccpr.php. 299 See, e.g., CAT Committee, Sahli v. Algeria, Comm. No. 341/2008, para. 11. 300 Joseph, S., “Toonen v. Australia: Gay Rights under the ICCPR”, (1994) 13 University of Tasmania Law Review 392, p. 401. 96