PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture The author should explain why the facts amount to a breach of named provisions of the relevant treaty. It is not strictly necessary to identify the Articles that have allegedly been violated, but it is preferable to do so. If possible, the author should refer to the previous case law or other jurisprudence (e.g. General Comments, Concluding Observations) of the relevant Committee.223 If there is no such favourable jurisprudence, the author could refer to the favourable jurisprudence of another UN treaty body, a regional human rights court or even a comparative decision from another State’s domestic courts.224 In short, the author should try to include references to legal precedents that support his or her case. If the previous case law of the relevant Committee undermines the author’s case, the author should acknowledge that fact and try to distinguish the previous case law, or put forward an argument as to why it should not be followed. The author should also, if possible, point out if the facts raise a novel issue that has not been previously addressed by the relevant Committee. If the complaint lacks essential information or the description of the facts is unclear, the complainant should be contacted by the Secretariat of the OHCHR with a request for additional details or a resubmission.225 The information requested should be sent as soon as possible and, if it has not been received within a year from the date of the request, the file will be closed.226 The author must confirm that the complaint satisfies all of the admissibility criteria. In particular, the author should detail how domestic remedies have been exhausted.227 The author should specify whether he or she has sought a remedy from the highest court of the relevant State; in doing so, the author should not assume that Committee members are familiar with the judicial hierarchy in the relevant State.228 If no relevant domestic remedies were available, that fact should be explained in the account. If domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the author should explain why they were not exhausted.229 The rule is waived where pursuance of a remedy is clearly futile, or is unreasonably prolonged. The author should explain why a remedy is not appropriate and effective, or why he or she believes it is unreasonably prolonged. Bald assertions (e.g. ‘the courts are unfair’; ‘the courts are corrupt’) in this regard are unlikely to be accepted at face value by the Committees. 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, at, e.g., paras. 40–41. See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para 46. HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 86, CAT Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 105. UN Fact Sheet No.7, Rev. 2 (2013), p. 5. See Section 2.1.1(c). See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para. 31. See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para. 32. 81