Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

308 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
Whenever there are doubts as to the effectiveness, adequateness, impartiality
or independence of a remedy, “mere doubts about the effectiveness
of local remedies or the prospect of financial costs involved” 1326
do not absolve the applicant from pursuing them. However, “where an
applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of
success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy”. 1327
b) Time limitations
The Human Rights Committee provides no time limits for the communication
of the complaint. However, in case of a prolonged delay
from the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee will require
a reasonable justification for it. Otherwise, it will declare the complaint
inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission. 1328 It has recently
restated this approach in its Rules of Procedure where it is established
that “a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission,
when it is submitted after 5 years from the exhaustion of domestic
remedies (. . .), or, where applicable, after 3 years from the conclusion
of another procedure of international investigation or settlement,
unless there are reasons justifying the delay taking into account all
the circumstances of the communication”. 1329 The Committee against
Torture does not apply a specific time limit, but has stated that it will
not admit communication received after an “unreasonably prolonged”
period. 1330 Neither the OP-CEDAW, the Committee on Enforced
Disappearance nor the OP-CRPD impose a time limit, but it is likely
that it will follow the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence. The
OP-ICESCR and the OP-CRC-CP will require a time limit of one year
after the exhaustion of the domestic remedies, unless the applicant
can demonstrate that it was not possible to submit the communication
within that time. 1331 CERD provides that the communication must be
submitted within six months of the exhaustion of domestic remedies,
including the “national CERD body”, “except in cases of duly verified
exceptional circumstances”. 1332
1326 A. v. Australia, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 656, para. 6.4; Na v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit.,
fn. 309, para. 89; see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy, ECtHR, Application No. 77363/01, Admissibility
Decision, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine, ECtHR, Application No. 6778/05,
Admissibility decision of 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, Application
No. 77631/01, Admissibility decision of 19 March 2002.
1327 Na v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 89; Selvanayagam v. United Kingdom,
ECtHR, No. 57981/00, Admissibility decision of 12 December 2002; McFeeley v. United Kingdom,
ECommHR, op. cit., fn. 4061, p. 44.
1328 Article 3 OP-ICCPR. See, Gobin v. Mauritius, CCPR, Communication No. 787/1997, Views of
20 August 2001, para. 6.3.
1329 Rule 96(c), CCPR Rules of Procedure.
1330 Rule 113(f), CAT Rules of Procedure.
1331 Article 3.2(a) OP-ICESCR; Article 7(h), OP-CRC-CP.
1332 Article 14.5 ICERD; Rule 91(f), CERD Rules of Procedure.