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

27. During the period covered by the report, MINUGUA admitted three complaints of enforced disappearances it established that a violation had occurred in respect of one complaint admitted during the previous period and that no violation had occurred in respect of one complaint admitted during this period the other two complaints are being verified.

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

64. After examining the arguments in the complaint, the Mission concluded that there had been no violation in view of the following facts

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.

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 was in that respect that the initial complaint was declared admissible in October 1992, and views with a finding of violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, were adopted in July 1994.

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.

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.

Complaint No.

The complaint

The complaint

The complaint

The complaint

The complaint

Formal complaint?

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.

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

Is no part of the complaint.

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

Cooperatives of Pakistan have the same complaint.

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.