individual complaint procedures provides for legal aid.96 Furthermore, the claimant does not re-
cover his costs even if the communication is successful. Even though the treaties do not require
legal representation before the committees,97 in practice, alleged victims have been represented
by lawyers, law professors and NGOs. In case this was pro bono representation, monetary costs
are low for the complainant. In all other cases, this substantially increases the costs in the calcu-
lation of the individual as even in case of success, the costs will be internalized, whereas the
benefit will often be socialized (depending on the collective good character of the case). None of
the committees will consider communications that are anonymous or which they consider to be
an abuse of the right of submission of such communications. Whereas the former requirement
may thus produce non-monetary costs to the complainants due to possible repercussions, the
latter requirement allows for the filtering of frivolous claims - a filter which could also be used
in case the standing requirements are extended, as suggested here. Apart from the very narrow
definition of ius standi, especially the cost provisions might also be reasons why there are few
complaints brought under the UN-treaty based mechanisms in view of the many countries and
citizens covered by the treaties.98 It is appropriate to call them, just as inter-state complaints,
thoroughly underused. Nevertheless, we will focus on the procedural provisions of ius standi and
their relationship with the substantive provisions for reasons outlined above.99
a. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
The CCPR details the basic civil and political rights of individuals and peoples. Among the
rights of peoples or collective rights are: the right to self-determination (Art. 1 (1)), the right to
own, trade, and dispose of their property freely, and not to be deprived of their means of subsis-
96 See MacGoldrick, supra note 33, at 134, who also considers that this will most probably not change due to
the fiscal situation of the UN.
97 Rule 90 (1) (b) of the HRC Rules of Procedure states that communications may be submitted by the
individual itself or by his representative.
98 Under the CCPR, as of 3 May 2004, from a total of 1279 concluded communications, 362 were inadmissible,
and from a total of 452 decided cases, in 349 cases a violation was found. There are 287 living cases. See
<www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/8/stat2.htm>.
Under CERD, as of 31 March 2004, from a total of 33 concluded communications, thirteen were
inadmissible, and from a total of ten decided cases, in five cases a violation was found. See
<www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/8/stat4.htm>. All the cases were directed against developed countries (except
for Australia, all countries were members of the EU) and most were communicated by non-citizens. The
CERD Committee thus is rather dealing with cases of discrimination against foreigners, mainly concerning
equality and non-discrimination issues in the area of economic and social rights. See Theodoor C. van Boven,
“The Petition System under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. A Sobering Balance-Sheet”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 4 (2000), 271-
287, at 281 and 285, who attributes the minimal use to lack of knowledge and information about the
existence of Art. 14 CERD. He then refers to some human rights centers, which have taken notice.
Under CEDAW, as of 30 April 2004, from a total of two concluded communications, one was inadmissible,
and in the other one a violation was found. See <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/dec-
views.htm>.
Under CAT, as of 14 May 2005, from a total of 242 concluded communications, 40 were inadmissible, 59
discontinued and from a total of 68 decided cases, in 25 cases a violation was found. There are 50 living
cases. See <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/8/stat3.htm>.
99 See supra note 8. For an overview on different monitoring systems, see Gudmundur Alfredsson et al. (eds.),
International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms. Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Moller, 2001, The
Hague.
25