PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture refrain from doing so by the Special Rapporteur in some circumstances.301 Information furnished in respect of follow-up is not generally confidential, unless it is decided otherwise.302 Though victims may not be anonymous, published records of the complaint may withdraw the name of the author, if so requested by the author. There are certain circumstances where a particular HRC or CAT Committee member will not take part in the consideration of a complaint. A member must not participate if the complaint is against the State party that nominated the member, if he or she has a personal interest in the case, or if the member has participated somehow in national decisions which are referred to in the complaint.303 Unusual examples of Committee members withdrawing from a complaint have arisen in HRC cases Judge v. Canada304 and Faurisson v. France.305 There is no appeal from the final decision of the HRC or the CAT Committee regarding inadmissibility or merits. Of course, a complaint may be resubmitted if it was originally found to be inadmissible, if the reasons for inadmissibility should cease to apply. For example, if the case is dismissed due to failure to exhaust local remedies, that reason will cease to apply if local remedies should subsequently be exhausted without satisfaction. Under Rule 111 of the CAT Rules of Procedure, it is possible for the CAT Committee to invite the author to submit evidence in closed session in person, that is, to submit oral evidence. In such a case, the State party would be invited to send a representative to attend as well. Non-attendance does not prejudice either party. Of course, many authors may not be able to afford to travel to the Committee’s sessions. As of 1 November 2013, one Rule 111 oral hearing had taken place.306 b) Choice of Forum An author may often have a choice over whether to refer a complaint to the HRC or to the CAT Committee. 301 302 303 304 HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 102(3). HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 103. HRC, Rules of Procedure, Rule 90; CAT Committee, Rules of Procedure, Rule 109. HRC, Judge v. Canada, Comm. No. 829/1998. The complaint concerned a prospective deportation from Canada to the US. The Canadian HRC member did not take part, in accordance with the normal HRC practice. Given the indirect involvement of the US in the case, the US member did not take part either. 305 HRC, Faurisson v. France, Comm. No. 550/1993. The US member of the HRC did not take part in this case, which concerned holocaust denial, because he had been a prisoner in a concentration camp in World War II. 306 CAT Committee, Abdussamatov and others v. Kazakhstan, Comm. No. 444/2010, para. 1.3. See also Section 2.1.2(d). 97