Submitted by: X (a non-governmental organization) (name deleted)
on 5 February 1983
Alleged victim: S. G. F.
State party: Uruguay
Declared inadmissible: 25 July 1983(nineteenth session)
Subject matter. Action by an NGO on behalf of imprisoned Uruguayan citizen
Procedural issues. Standing of the author-Actio popularis
Articles of the Optional Protocol: 1 and 2
1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 5 February 1983 and further submission dated 16 June 1983) is X (a non-governmental organization). It submits the communication on behalf of S. G. F., a Uruguayan national at present living in Sweden. The organization states that the request of S. G. F. for it to act on her behalf was made through close friends living in France whose identity, however, it felt unable to disclose. No written evidence with regard to the authority of the organization to act on behalf of the alleged victim has been provided. The author alleges that S. G. F. is a victim of a breach by Uruguay of articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
2. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
3.Articles I and 2 of the Optional Protocol. to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide that individuals who themselves claim to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant may submit communications to the Human Rights Committee. The Human Rights Committee has established through a number of decisions on admissibility that a communication submitted by a third party on behalf of an alleged victim can only be considered if the author justifies his authority to submit the communication. With regard to the present communication, the Committee cannot accept on the basis of the information before it that the author has the necessary authority to submit the communication on behalf of the alleged victim.
4.The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
That the communication is inadmissible.