Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 303
success, that appeal does not constitute an effective
remedy”. 760
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. 761 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”. 762 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. 763 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
760
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.
761
Article 3 OP-ICCPR. See, Gobin v. Mauritius, CCPR, Communication
No. 787/1997, Views of 20 August 2001, para. 6.3.
762
Rule 96(c), CCPR Rules of Procedure.
763
Rule 113(f), CAT Rules of Procedure.