Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies (e) Abuse of the Right of Submission/ Undue Delay in Submission Sometimes a complaint will be found inadmissible because it is an abuse of the right of submission. The doctrine of an abuse of submission is primarily applied in relation to the delay of submissions, as the CAT and ICCPR do not contain explicit time limits, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights.199 The CAT Committee, in Ben Salem v. Tunisia, pointed out that: [I]n order for there to be abuse of the right to raise a matter before the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, one of the following conditions must be met: the submission of a matter to the Committee must amount to malice or a display of bad faith or intent at least to mislead, or be frivolous; or the acts or omissions referred to must have nothing to do with the Convention.200 This ground of inadmissibility is rarely invoked. It might arise, for example, if a purported victim deliberately submits false information to a Committee.201 As mentioned, it might also arise if the complaint is submitted after a very long period of time has elapsed since the incident complained of. In particular, the HRC, in its rules of procedure, has recently included a provision specifying that a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted after five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication or, where applicable, after three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay.202 The rules of procedure of the HRC can be found in Appendix 4 of this Handbook. The case of Gobin v. Mauritius was dismissed on this ground. The complaint concerned alleged discrimination against the complainant by the State, contrary to Article 26 ICCPR, entailed in its failure to acknowledge his election to the Mauritian legislature. The complaint was submitted five years after the relevant election. Though there is no strict time limit in which one should submit a complaint to the HRC, it stated in this case: [T]he alleged violation took place at periodic elections held five years before the communication was submitted on behalf of the alleged victim to the Committee with no convincing explanation in justification of this delay. In the absence of such explanation the Committee is of the opinion that submitting the communication after 199 See Article 35(1) of the ECHR and Article 46(1) of the ACHR. 200 CAT Committee, Ben Salem v. Tunisia, Comm. No. 269/2005, para. 8.4. 201 Nowak, M. and McArthur, E., The United Nations Convention Against Torture. A Commentary, Oxford University Press (2008), p. 747. 202 HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 96(c). 76