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

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 307
recognised that “a violation of the Convention may concern
important questions of principle and thus cause a significant
disadvantage without affecting pecuniary interest”. 777
Furthermore, the Court will also have to ascertain whether the
examination is, nonetheless, required by the respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols. The
Court has found this not to be the case when “the relevant law
has changed and similar issues have been resolved in other
cases before it”. 778 Finally, the Court will verify whether the
case has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal,
which has been interpreted as a duty to ascertain that no
denial of justice occurred at the domestic level. 779
According to the OP-ICESCR, the CESCR “may, if necessary,
decline to consider a communication where it does not reveal
that the author has suffered a clear disadvantage, unless the
Committee considers that the communication raises a serious
issue of general importance”. 780 However, this provision does
not constitute an admissibility criterium. The wording “if
necessary” means that the “clear disadvantage” test is
discretionary and likely to be used by the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights only in exceptional
circumstances.
e) Other grounds
All UN Treaty Bodies, the ECtHR, the IACHR, and the ACHPR
will reject as inadmissible petitions which are anonymous,
which constitute an abuse of right of submission, or that are
incompatible with the provisions of the human rights treaty of
their concern. 781 CAT, CEDAW, CESCR, the European Court, and
777
Ibid.
778
Mihai Ionescu v. Romania, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1341, para. 37.
779
Petrovich Korolev v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1341.
780
Article 4 OP-ICESCR (emphasis added).
781
Article 3 OP-ICCPR; Rule 96(a), (c) and (d), CCPR Rules of
Procedure; Article 3.2(d) to (g) OP-ICESCR; Article 22.2 CAT; Rule