Any person shall have the right to inform the authorities and lodge a complaint about any violation of this Law.

Firstly, it maintains that domestic remedies have not been exhausted with regard to the complaint of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b).

Furthermore, the National Human Rights Office was mandated to examine any complaint alleging a violation of human rights and to issue recommendations to employers.

The Committee finds that the author has not sufficiently substantiated, for the purpose of admissibility, her complaint of an alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and that her complaint is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

On 17 January 2003, the State party reiterated its view that the complaint was inadmissible and that there had been no violation of the Covenant.

4.3 On 23 January 2003 the State party submitted its observations concerning the merits of the complaint, affirming that there had been no violation of the Covenant.

4.15 With regard to the complaint of the violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party considers that this article does not constitute a substantive right as such but is appurtenant to the violation of a right guaranteed by the Covenant.

4.16 With regard to the complaint of violations of articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, the State party maintains that there is no prima facie evidence of a violation.

The State party argues that this part of the complaint is inadmissible in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, and failing that, that no violation took place.

2.17 The Thisted police rejected the complaint against the Progressive Party on the basis that the State party's law, as it then stood, did not permit a complaint of violation of section 266 (b) to be filed against entities with legal personality, including a political party.

On 23 January 2003 the State party reiterated its view that the complaint was inadmissible and that there had been no violation of the Covenant by the State party.

She challenged its view that the complaint amounts to an actio popularis and reiterates her claim that her expulsion to Iran would expose her to a real risk of violation of her rights under the Covenant, and that in assessing her complaint the Dutch authorities unfairly concluded that her claims were insufficiently substantiated.

In its decision on that case, after having assessed the value of the guarantees and finding no violation of the Convention, the Committee already dealt with the very issue raised by the present complaint.

It acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, but contends that the complaint is inadmissible since the complainant's claim that she is at risk of treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention in the event of return to Bangladesh lacks the minimum substantiation that would render the complaint compatible with article 22 of the Covenant.

The author of the complaint is Ms. Josefa Guillén Martínez, a Spanish national resident in France, who claims that she is the victim of a violation by Spain of articles 14, paragraph 1, and 17 of the Covenant.

Accordingly, the Committee considers that the authors have not provided sufficient substantiation for their complaint of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, and finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

In the Committee's view, as far as the decision on lack of competence was concerned, the State party had not shown how re presentation of the complaint would provide an available and effective remedy for the alleged violation of the Convention.

He emphasizes, however, that in both cases the speed with which the removal was undertaken denied an effective exercise of a complaint mechanism, a circumstance that for the European Court disclosed a violation of article 34 of the European Convention.

He further argues that the absence of a Commission facility of interim measures which he wished to invoke following escalating acts of reprisals following filing of his complaint is a violation of article 2, taken in conjunction with articles 19 and 26.

Complaint No.

The complaint

The complaint

The complaint

The complaint

5.5 The author claims that the dismissal of his complaint by the Supreme Court also deprived him of his right to access to an effective remedy, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, and 25 (c) in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant.

Date of complaint 8 February 2002

Date of complaint 19 November 2002

Date of complaint 28 November 2002

Date of complaint 25 June 2003

Date of complaint 28 February 2000

(c) The object of the complaint

5.4 Concerning the alleged violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the Public Prosecutor never informed the complainant about whether an investigation was being or had been conducted after the criminal complaint was filed on 31 January 2000.

Having concluded its consideration of complaint No.

Having concluded its consideration of complaint No.

Date of the complaint 20 December 2001

Date of the complaint 8 November 2002

Date of the complaint 12 December 2002

Date of the complaint 16 January 2003

Date of the complaint 7 June 2002

Date of the complaint 16 September 2002

Those measures constitute a violation of Cuba's sovereignty and a massive violation of the rights of its people.

Date of complaint 29 November 2001 (initial submission)

7.1 The Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint at its thirtieth session and declared the complaint admissible in a decision of 29 April 2003.

3.1 The author contends that his complaint about his diagnosis was not the subject of fair and impartial proceedings, and that the court's evaluation of the evidence regarding the events in question was arbitrary, resulting in a denial of justice, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

Complaint by Cuba (S 10993).