Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies In deciding which forum to choose, the following issues should be borne in mind: – Check that the State party allows individual communications under both treaties. – Check the reservations of the State party. – Check the case law and other jurisprudence of the relevant body, to see if there are precedents that are favourable or unfavourable to one’s case.307 The admissibility requirements of the two treaties are almost identical. The only difference is that the HRC can examine complaints that have been considered by another international body, so long as that body’s deliberations are complete. The CAT Committee cannot consider any complaint that has been examined before another procedure of international investigation or settlement.308 Thus, it is preferable for an author to submit a complaint to the HRC instead of the CAT Committee if the complaint has ever been considered by another quasi-judicial or judicial international human rights body. In cases where a communication can be sent to either the CAT Committee or the HRC, the victim and his or her legal representative have to take a strategic decision as to which of the two mechanisms to submit the cases. The overriding principle should be the interest and informed consent of the victim or client. However, other considerations, including those of strategic litigation, may also influence the choice. The following may provide some basic elements for consideration in this regard: Scope of violations: A key criterion is the scope of violations as the explicit rights provided in the CAT may be more narrow than those contained in the ICCPR, and it can therefore be useful to submit a case to the HRC if many other violations are implicated (such as arbitrary detention, unfair trial, freedom of expression or the right to private life). This is especially the case if the victim of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment remains in custody after a conviction and wishes to challenge the unlawfulness of the conviction and subsequent detention. It is worth noting, however, that these elements may arise in the context of the CAT, including lack of preventive safeguards (such as access to a lawyer or judge under Article 2 of the CAT); and that some provisions in the CAT are more explicit than in the ICCPR. This is true, for example, in relation to the jurisdictional scope of the crime of torture and the exclusionary rule on evidence or information used in proceedings.309 307 In this respect, please refer to Parts III and IV of this Handbook, amongst other sources. 308 See Section 2.1.1(d). 309 See “How to Complain about Human Rights Treaty Violations, Choosing a Forum”, para. 3, available at: http://www.bayefsky.com/complain/44_forum.php; see also Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this Handbook. 98