CAT/C/53/D/511/2012 3.2 The complainant further submits that if article 14 is interpreted as obliging State parties to provide a means of legal redress in its courts for victims of acts of torture committed in a foreign State, then State parties to the Convention (including China) must be considered to have waived any claim to State immunity if they do not provide any means of victim redress in their own legal systems. 3.3 The complainant also maintains that, by denying her fair compensation, the State party provided “blanket immunity” to the perpetrators of torture. Therefore, the complainant contends that the immunity provided by the Foreign States Immunities Act of 1985 is inconsistent with the obligations of Australia under the Convention. The complainant submits that the State party should issue a regulation removing blanket immunity. She maintains that the State party should allow her, as a national and resident, to file a claim against the persons responsible for torturing her in China, where the courts do not allow any effective alternative remedy. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submission dated 15 February 2013, the State party adds to the factual background of the communication, stating that it made representations to senior officials in the Government of China to request the complainant’s release and to ensure that Australian consular officials were afforded their right to provide consular assistance to the complainant when she was in detention. During court proceedings in Australia, the complainant did not raise arguments under article 14 of the Convention until she filed a special leave application to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The special leave application was denied on the basis that article 14 had not been raised before the lower courts.11 4.2 The State party considers that the communication should be found inadmissible ratione personae because the complainant requests the Committee to consider only whether article 14 imposes an obligation on the State party to provide its nationals and residents the right to pursue foreign perpetrators of torture in Australian courts in circumstances where the courts of the country of the place of torture do not allow any effective alternative remedy, thereby requiring the Committee to consider whether China itself has violated article 14 by allegedly not providing an effective remedy to the complainant. Under article 22, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, a complaint may only be submitted against a State party to the Convention by an individual who claims to be a victim of a violation by that State party. Further, a communication is inadmissible ratione personae if it concerns a State party to the Convention that has not made the optional declaration under article 22, paragraph 1. This position is consistent with the views of the Human Rights Committee12 and the International Court of Justice, 13 the latter of which has found that 11 12 13 8 1990), p. 7; Alexander Orakhelashvili, “State immunity and hierarchy of norms: why the House of Lords got it wrong”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 18, No. 5 (2008), pp. 960–963; and David Matas, “Immunity in Australia from Torture”, remarks to a press conference on 4 November 2010 in Sydney, Australia, available online. The State party does not, however, contest the admissibility of the communication on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party cites Human Rights Committee communications No. 319/1988, García v. Ecuador, inadmissibility decision of 18 October 1990; No. 1638/2007, Wilfred v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 30 October 2008. The State party cites Case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States) (Preliminary Question), Judgment of 15 June 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 19; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, p. 240; East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90.