complainant alleges that his record card was substituted to prevent any possibility for him to seek compensation for the diseases suffered. procedure for the State party. As example, he refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (case of K. and K. v. Hungary, communication N° 520/1992, inadmissibility decision adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 6.4). 2.18 The complainant applied to the European Court of Human Rights (application N° 34132/03 of 29 October 2003, declared inadmissible on 29 April 2005). However, according to him, the allegations before the European Court relate only to the period following the allegations of the present communication, i.e., after 10 February 1998.3 5.2 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, he reiterates that he did not believe in the effectiveness of the procedures in the State party. In support of this statement, he names five former death row prisoners who were granted new trials in 2002– 2004. Allegedly, all of them had complained of torture and ill-treatment in detention, but the courts allegedly ignored all of their claims and confirmed their life sentences.4 The claim 3.1 The complainant claims that the conditions of detention, and the manner the authorities treated him while he was on death row (1994–1998), amounted to a violation of articles 1 (1) and 2 of the Convention. 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 appeal.5 3.2 Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3 are also said to have been violated, as the cells where he was held were allegedly overcrowded by a factor of 2 to 4 compared to the possible occupancy, and he—as a former policeman—was held together with ordinary criminals. 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. 3.3 Allegedly, in violation of article 12 of the Convention, the authorities omitted to investigate promptly and impartially deaths of prisoners who awaited execution, “when there were reasonable grounds” that their dead was the consequence of the torture and cruel treatment they were subjected to by the prison authorities. 6.2 The Committee has noted, first, that the complainant’s allegations (see para. 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 authorized to act on the victim’s behalf. In the present case, the complainant has not presented any authorization 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 3.4 Finally, the complainant claims a violation of article 13, because of the State party’s impossibility to secure an impartial examination of the claims of torture and cruel treatment. State party’s observations on admissibility 4. The State party contested the admissibility of the communication on 19 July 2004. It recalls that it recognized the Committee’s competence to examine individual complaints on 4 February 2002, and that accordingly, the Committee is only competent to examine complaints submitted against Azerbaijan after that date. Accordingly, the State party considers the complainant’s communication to be inadmissible. 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. Complainant’s comments 5.1 By letter of 6 November 2004, the complainant concedes that the events complained of occurred before the State party’s acceptance of the Committee’s competence to examine individual complaints against it. According to him, however, the ratione temporis rule does not apply if violations continue after the date of entry into force of the 4 According to the complainant, only on one occasion was a life sentence commuted to 15 years of imprisonment, due to a decriminalization of an offence. 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. 3 The European Convention for Human Rights entered into force for Azerbaijan on 15 April 2002. 5