PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture Timing and stigma: An important consideration can be the question of how the country concerned tends to react to cases before either of the Committees and whether it has already shown its commitment to implement the decisions. In this regard, it should be noted that a ‘condemnation’ by the CAT Committee might entail a far stronger stigma for the State concerned, and thus provide an additional incentive by the State to seek to settle the case prior to the decision or to implement the decision. Overall, there may be a higher implementation rate with CAT than with the HRC but this may be due to the fact that a high proportion of decisions of CAT concern democratic States in non-refoulement cases with a tendency to be more rule-of-law compliant and respectful of treaty body decisions. In addition, it needs to be taken into account that the HRC receives many more cases than the CAT Committee, and consequently takes longer to decide cases. Although the HRC has one more meeting per year, this does not make up for the gap in the numbers of complaints it must deal with. Merits decisions by the HRC on average take between three and four years, while merits decisions by the CAT Committee take two years.310 Strategic consideration: Litigation to the treaty bodies can seek to redress an individual violation in which the interests of victims usually take precedence over other considerations. Most cases, however, have a broader significance that goes beyond a purely individual interest. First, reparation decisions of the CAT or HRC must be implemented in a manner that guarantees non-repetition. Second, litigants may have strategic objectives: they may wish, for example, to build new case law (for example, on provisions of the CAT) or set a legal precedent, or address a broader underlying systemic problem. Where this is so, it can be advisable to submit a number of cases to the HRC and to the CAT. The above are only a few of the considerations that may guide the choice of forum. Decisions should be determined in every case by the victims’ interests and consent, and whether or not broader strategic interests are to be pursued. i) Regional Treaties It is often possible for an author to submit a complaint to a regional treaty body (e.g. the European Court of Human Rights) instead of a UN treaty body. Relevant 310 Ibid. 99