2.4 The author asks the Committee to request Tunisia to take measures to protect the physical, moral and economic security of his family, the victim’s family and the witnesses and their families. 2.5 Finally, the author states that the International Secretariat of Amnesty International in London has accepted to provide evidence in support of his communication. 2.6 By letters of 12 September 1994, 8 October 1994 and 26 April 1995, the author expresses concern over the safety of witnesses who reportedly have been detained and questioned by Tunisian authorities in connection with the communication before the Committee. Moreover, members of the author’s and the victim’s families have been allegedly subjected to intimidation. The State party’s information: 3.1 By submissions of 9 August, 10 November 1994 and 18 April 1995, the State party denies the author’s allegations and claims that the communication is inadmissible, invoking rule 107 of the Committee’s rules of procedure and arguing that communications must be presented by victims or their representatives, properly designated and authorized. It is contended that Mr. B. M’B. has not been duly authorized by the family to present a claim before the Committee. 3.2 Moreover, the State party argues that it appears that the author is acting as a representative of Amnesty International, and that he therefore has no standing under article 22 of the Convention. Admissibility considerations: 4.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention and its rules of procedure. 4.2 Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention stipulates that "a State party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention" (emphasis added). 4.3 Rule 107, paragraph 1 (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure provides: "... The communication should be submitted by the individual himself or by his relatives or designated representatives or by others on behalf of an alleged victim when it appears that the victim is unable to submit the communication himself, and the author of the communication justifies his acting on the victim’s behalf". 4.4 The Committee has examined the author’s arguments and the State party’s objections concerning the issue of standing for purposes of admissibility. The Committee finds that at this stage, the author has not submitted sufficient proof to establish his authority to act on behalf of the victim. 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; -70-