PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture the “indirect victim” while the latter is the “direct” victim.70 For example, in Quinteros v. Uruguay, the complaint arose out of the kidnap, torture, and continued detention (and indeed disappearance) of Elena Quinteros Almeida by Uruguayan security forces. A violation was also found in regard to the woman’s mother, who submitted the complaint on behalf of her daughter and herself, due to the anguish, stress, and uncertainty caused by her daughter’s continued disappearance: that mental trauma was found to constitute ill-treatment contrary to Article 7 ICCPR.71 In Schedko v. Belarus, a similar violation of Article 7 was found in respect of the mother of a man who had been executed by the authorities, as those authorities failed to inform her of the date, hour, place of execution, and site of burial. The HRC stated: The Committee understands the continued anguish and mental stress caused to the author, as the mother of a condemned prisoner, by the persisting uncertainty of the circumstances that led to his execution, as well as the location of his gravesite. The complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress. The Committee considers that the authorities’ initial failure to notify the author of the scheduled date for the execution of her son, and their subsequent persistent failure to notify her of the location of her son’s grave amounts to inhuman treatment of the author, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.72 In some circumstances, a victim is simply unable to submit or authorize the submission of a complaint.73 For example, the victim may be dead or may be incarcerated in incommunicado detention (where he or she is unable to make contact with the outside world). If this is the case, another person can have standing to bring the complaint if he or she can establish that the victim would be likely to have consented to his or her representation before the relevant Committee. A close family connection will normally suffice in this regard.74 The HRC has so far not recognized the standing of people who are not family members such as a personal friend or an employee when no prior authorization has been obtained from the victim. In Mbenge v. Zaire, for example, the HRC held that the author of the complaint could represent his relatives but he could not represent either his driver or his pharmacist.75 70 71 72 73 74 75 See also U. Erdal, H. Bakirci, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook, OMCT (2006), p. 85. HRC, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 107/1981, para.14; see also Section 3.2.8. HRC, Schedko v. Belarus, Comm. No. 886/1999, para. 10.2. See HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 96(b). See, e.g., HRC, Valentini de Bazzano v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 5/1977, para. 5; and HRC, Bourchef v. Algeria, Comm. No. 1196/2003, para. 1.1. HRC, Monguya Mbenge v. Zaire, Comm. No. ADD 16/1977 51