Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies In X v. Serbia, the complaint was brought by a non-governmental organisations monitoring and investigating human rights violations in Serbia. The case concerned a 10 year-old boy that was sexually abused by five men. The NGO had not provided either authorization to act on behalf of the child, his legal guardian or his parents, or evidence that the victim or his relatives had consented to that. While there was no biological link between the author and the victim, the former argued that acting as legal counsel for the victim, the organization had shown a sustained willingness to seek redress for the child. The HRC did not rule out that in the best interest of the child, a counsel representing the child in the domestic proceedings might continue to bring claims to the Committee on his or her behalf without the child’s (or his or her immediate family) formal authorisation.76 However, given that the author and the victim had not been in contact for more than a year, and in the absence of an express authorization or any indication that informal consent from the child had been obtained, the HRC decided to declare the case inadmissible for the lack of standing of the author.77 If circumstances change so that a victim who has been unable to authorize a complaint becomes able to authorize it, then that victim must give his or her authorization for the consideration of the complaint to continue. For example, in Mpandanjila et al. v. Zaire the complaint was originally submitted on behalf of 13 people detained incommunicado. These people were released while the HRC’s decision was pending. The complaint continued only in respect of 9 of the 13 people, as four people did not explicitly give any authorization for the complaint to continue on their behalf.78 If a complaint is in the process of being considered by the relevant Committee, and the author dies, an heir of the author may proceed with the complaint.79 If no heir instructs that Committee, the case will be discontinued.80 (b) Jurisdictional Requirements i. Ratione Materiae A person must have a claim under one of the substantive rights of the respective treaty before his or her case can be deemed admissible.81 For example, a claim over a 76 77 78 79 80 81 52 HRC, X v. Serbia, Comm. No. 1355/2005, para. 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.7. HRC, Mpandanjila et al. v. Zaire, Comm. No. 138/83, paras. 4.1–4.2. See HRC, Gilberto François Croes v. The Netherlands, Comm. No. 164/84; HRC, Hopu and Bessert v. France, Comm. No. 549/1993; HRC, Arenz v. Germany, Comm. No. 1138/02. See, e.g., HRC, Wallen v. Trinidad and Tobago, Comm. No. 576/1994, para. 6.2. For instance, in some cases, the author has claimed a violation of his or her rights under Article 2 of the ICCPR; however, given that this provision lays down general obligations for States parties, it cannot be alleged on its own merit without invoking any of the substantive rights included in Part III (Articles 6–27). See, e.g., HRC, Alekperov. v. The Russian Federation, Comm. No. 1764/2008, para. 8.3; HRC, C.E.A. v. Finland, Comm. No. 316/1988, para. 6.2.