CAT/C/35/D/247/2004 Page 8 5.3 According to the complainant, in 2004, one prisoner serving a life sentence sought to obtain compensation for tuberculosis he had contracted while he was on death row from 1996 to 1998, detained in an overcrowded cell together with prisoners who suffered from tuberculosis. He lost his case and his cassation appeal5 . Issues and proceedings before the Committee: 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has noted, first, that the complainant’s allega tions (see paragraph 3.3 above) that the State party’s authorities have consistently failed to investigate reports of deaths of prisoners on death row. It recalls that it can only examine complaints if they are submitted by the alleged victims, close relatives, or by a representative duly authorised to act on the victim’s behalf. In the present case, the complainant has not presented any authorisation to act on behalf of any other alleged victim. Accordingly, the Committee finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible under rule 98, paragraph 2 (c), of its rules of procedure 6 . 6.3 On the remaining parts of the complainant’s claims, the Committee recalls that the State party had challenged the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the events complained of took place before its acceptance, on 4 February 2002, of the Committee’s competence to deal with individual communications under article 22 of the Convention. The complainant has refuted this assertion by invoking the “continuing effect” doctrine. 6.4 The Committee recalls that a State party's obligations under the Convention apply from the date of its entry into force for that State party7 . It considers, however, that it can examine alleged violations of the Convention which occurred before a State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence to receive and consider individual communications alleging violations of the Convention (i.e. before the declaration under article 22 became effective, i.e. 4 February 2002, in the present case), if the effects of these violations continued after the declaration under article 22 became effective, and if the effects constitute in themselves a violation of the Convention. A continuing violation must be interpreted as an affirmation, after the formulation of the declaration, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations of the State party. 6.5 The Committee has noted that in the present case, the complainant’s allegations under articles 1, 2, and 13, of the Convention (see paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 above) all relate to events which occurred before the State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence to consider individual complaints. According to the complainant, however, these alleged violations had effects which continued after the State party’s acceptance of the Committee’s competence under article 22. 5 It is stated however, that the Supreme Court made no decision on the case, because the plaintiff was pardoned, released and left the country. 6 CAT/C/3/Rev.4 7 See O.R, M.M., and M.S. v. Argentina, Communications Nos 1, 2, and 3/1988, Inadmissibility decision adopted in November 1989.