PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture techniques, which were authorized for use by private military contractors, with Article 7.114 In H.v.d.P. v. The Netherlands, the complaint related to the recruitment policies of the European Patent Office. The complainant argued that, as France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden were State parties to both the European Patent Convention and the OP to the ICCPR, the HRC was competent to hear the case. The HRC found the case to be inadmissible: “the … grievances … concern the recruitment policies of an international organization, which cannot, in any way, be construed as coming within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands or of any other State party” to the ICCPR and the OP.115 It therefore appears that States are not liable under the UN treaties for the acts of international organisations to which they belong. States parties are not liable for violations of ICCPR and CAT rights by other States. However, a State can be liable under the treaties if it takes action which exposes a person to a reasonably foreseeable violation of his or her rights by another State.116 An example of such a violation is when a State deports a person to another State in circumstances where the deportee faces a real risk of torture in the receiving State. Such actions are prohibited under Article 3 of CAT and Article 7 of the ICCPR. In such cases, it is the act of deportation that breaches the treaty, rather than any act of torture which might occur in the receiving State.117 (c) Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Article 5(2)(b) of the OP states: The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that … the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged. A similar admissibility requirement is found in Article 22(5)(b) of CAT. Article 22(5) (b) adds that a person does not have to exhaust domestic remedies if they are “unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention”. Therefore, in order for a complaint to be considered by either Committee, it must be shown that the complainant has genuinely attempted (by carefully observing the procedural requirements) to utilize all the available 114 115 116 117 Concluding Observations on the US, (2006) UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, para. 13. HRC, H.v.d.P. v. The Netherlands, Comm. No. 217/1986, para. 3.2. See HRC, Munaf v. Romania, Comm. No. 1539/2006, para. 14.2. If an act of torture subsequently takes place in the receiving State, that State breaches the CAT and/or the ICCPR, depending on whether it is a party to those treaties. For further detail on the non-refoulement rule, see discussion in Section 1.1 and Appendix 11. 59