Inadmissibility decision; Procedural issues: victim status; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
U. R. v. Uruguay, Communication No. 128/1982, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at
40 (1990).
Submitted by: L. A. (name deleted) on 7 October 1982
Alleged victim: U. R.
State party: Uruguay
Declared inadmissible: 6 April 1983 (eighteenth session)
Subject matter: Detention of Uruguayan citizen by military authorities
Procedural issue: Standing of the author
Articles of the Covenant: 1 and 2
1. The author of the communication, dated 7 October 1982, is L. A., a Swedish medical
doctor residing in Sweden. He submits the communication to the Human Rights Committee,
on behalf of U. R., a Uruguayan medical student, who is presently detained in Libertad
prison, Uruguay, and is unable to present the communication on his own behalf.
2. The author alleges that U. R. is a victim of a breach by Uruguay of articles 9, 10 and 14 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. L. A. indicates that, as a member of
a Swedish branch of Amnesty International, he has been working on the case, without avail,
since 27 March 1980. He claims to have the authority to act on behalf of U. R. because he
believes "that every prisoner treated unjustly would appreciate further investigation of his
case by the Human Rights Committee".
3. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide
whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
4. Articles I and 2 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provide that individuals who themselves claim to be victims of violations of
any of the rights set forth in the Covenant may submit communications to the Human Rights
Committee. The Human Rights Committee has established through a number of decisions on
admissibility that a communication submitted by a third party on behalf of an alleged victim
can only be considered if the author justifies his authority to submit the communication. With
regard to the present communication, the Committee cannot accept on the basis of the
information before it that the author has any authority to submit the communication on behalf
of the alleged victim.
5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
That the communication is inadmissible.