Question on Standing



Anna Koptova v. Slovak Republic, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Communication No 13/1998, 1 Nov 2000.
The Committee was of the view, contrary to the State party, that the author could be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention, since she belonged to a group of the population directly targeted by the resolutions in question.

Establishing victim status requires the demonstration that the individual was harmed. In this case, the victim’s status as a member of the group discriminated against affected her despite the fact that the law was not directly applied to her. Victim status can be argued to exist where the violation has indirect adverse effects on the author of the communication.



Khaled M'Barek v Tunisia, Committee Against Torture, Communication No. 60/1996, 24 Jan 2000.
The Committee found the communication admissible. In this case, it required the State Party to submit evidence to counter the presumption that the written authorisation was genuine.

If the author of the communication is submitting it on behalf of a victim, the author should include evidence that would provide a rebuttable presumption that he/she is authorised to act on behalf of the victim.



A. E. M. and C. B. L. v. Spain, Committee against Torture, Communication No. 10/1993, 2 Feb 1993.
The authors of the initial communication are A. E. M. and C. B. L., citizens of Spain residing in Santurce in the Basque province, writing on behalf of their son J. E. and his wife E. B., who are currently detained at the Spanish prisons of Orense and Albacete, respectively. In this example, relatives of the victim are bringing the communication on the victim’s behalf. They have obtained the victim’s consent to act on his behalf.

Details of A. E. M. and C. B. L. v. Spain:Read online


Analysis of views and decisions prepared for IWRAW Asia Pacific by Amanda Norejko, former student of New York University, International Human Rights Clinic