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

302 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6a relative of the victim. The Commission has clearly stated that “[t]heapplicant must claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, ormust appear before the Commission as a representative of a putativevictim of a violation of the Convention by a State Party. It is not sufficientfor an applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violatesher rights under the American Convention, it is necessary that the lawhas been applied to her detriment.” 1292iii) Mechanisms for collective complaints: ECSRThe collective complaints system of the European Committee on SocialRights does not provide for a right of individual application. It does conferthe standing to make a complaint on certain organisations, namely:• International organisations of employers and trade unions;• Other international non-governmental organisations which haveconsultative status with the Council of Europe and have beenplaced on a list established for this purpose by the GovernmentalCommittee;• Representative national organisations of employers and tradeunions within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party againstwhich they have lodged a complaint;• National non-governmental organisations with competence in thematters governed by the Charter, which have been allowed by theContracting State of origin to lodge complaints against it. 1293iv) Individual and collective complaints: the ACHPRArticle 55 ACHPR does not place any restrictions on who can submitcases to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.The Commission has interpreted this provision as giving locus standi tovictims and their families, as well as NGOs and others acting on theirbehalf, even when they are not representatives of the victims. Indeed,for the African Commission, “the African Charter does not call for theidentification of the victims of a Communication. According to the termsof Article 56(1), only the identification of the author or authors of theCommunication is required.” 1294 This position is an established principleof the African Commission’s jurisprudence. 12951292 Montoya González v. Costa Rica, IACHR, Case 11.553, Report No. 48/96, Admissibility Decision,16 October 1996, para. 28.1293 Articles 1 and 2, AP-ESC.1294 FIDH, National Human Rights Organisation (ONDH) and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defensedes Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) v. Senegal, ACommHPR, Communication No. 304/2005,40 th Ordinary, 15–29 November 2006, para. 40.1295 See, as reference, Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, ACommHPR, op. cit.,fn. 1006. See also, Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon, ACommHPR, CommunicationNo. 266/2003, 45 th Ordinary Session, 13–27 May 2009, para. 67.