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

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 305
remedies are exhausted or from the date the Commission is
seized of the matter. 769
c) Duplication of procedures or similar requirements
Generally, a complaint will be inadmissible if the same matter
has already been examined by the human rights body or has
been or is being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement. 770 This requirement
must however be interpreted restrictively. A complaint can be
introduced if the case submitted to another body was
submitted by a third party without authorisation by the victim
or a family member, if the human rights violations claimed
were different, if it raised different factual allegations than the
ones presented, or if the complaint was sent to a non-judicial
body, such as a Special Rapporteur. 771
There is an exception for the Human Rights Committee, which
applies this rule only to complaints pending before another
international procedure. If the other procedure has ended, it is
still possible for the Human Rights Committee to hear the same
769
Article 56.6 ACHPR.
770
Article 5.2(a) OP-ICCPR; Rule 96(e), CCPR Rules of Procedure;
Article 3.2(c) OP-ICESCR; Article 22.5(a) CAT; Rule 113(d), CAT Rules
of Procedure; Article 4.2(a) OP-CEDAW; Article 77.3(a) ICRMW; Article
7(d), OP-CRC-CP; Article 2(c), OP-CRPD; Article 31.2(c), CED; Article
35.2(b) ECHR; Articles 46 and 47 ACHR; Article 33, IACHR Rules of
Procedure; Article 56.7 ACHPR.
771
See, in treaty law, Article 56.7 ACHPR. See also, on identity of
applicants, Folgero and others v. Norway, ECtHR, Application No.
15472/02, Judgment of 29 June 2007; on difference of human rights
complaints, Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No.
46133/99 and 48183/99, Judgment of 24 July 2003. See also, Baena-
Ricardo et al. v. Panama, IACtHR, Series C No. 61, Preliminary
Objections, Judgment of 18 November 1999, para. 53; Durand and
Ugarte, IACtHR, Series C No. 50, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of
28 May 1999, para. 43 (on different applicants for same case).