Alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy for property destruction, inadmissible as domestic remedies not exhausted

Facts

The author is a Croatian national who claims a that the destruction of his property during the 1992 Croatian War of Independence and later failure to compensate is in violation of his rights under articles 2 (1); 2 (3) (a); 5 (1); 14 (1), read in conjunction with 2 (1); and 17, read alone and in conjunction with 2 (1) and 5 (1), of the Covenant.

The author submitted that the state party violated his rights by denying his application for compensation for the value of the property, which the state intentionally destroyed in 1992. The author filed in 2004 with domestic authorities for compensation, however was rejected at a later date. The author did not contest the claim further, as he noted it would not provide an effective remedy.

Admissibility

Regarding the claim that the author was denied access to public information, the Committee found that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies, and this claim was therefore inadmissible. 

With respect to the provision of an effective remedy, the Committee observed that the author would have had a reason to expect a positive outcome if he had challenged the domestic authorities at the Constitutional Court. In light of this reasoning, the Committee found the communication inadmissible due to it being inadmissible as domestic remedies were not exhausted.