View Adopted: 2022.07.27
The author, MCIC, and her husband, both nationals of Spain, suffered a terrorist attack when they were in a car, which caused extensive physical injuries on both of them.News articles and police reports stated that the couple belonged to Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Herri Batasuna, organisations deemed to commit violence. The author requested compensation for the attack, but it was rejected based on a domestic law that stated that the compensation to victims of terrorism is to be reduced if the victim participated in any organisation that perpetrated violence. The author alleges violation of article 14 (2) for not recognizing her right to the presumption of innocence. The author also alleges violation of articles 22 (1, 2) and 26 of the Covenant or the right to freedom of association and the right not to suffer discrimination for political reasons, arguing that at the time of their membership in Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Herri Batasuna were legitimate organisations.
The communication is inadmissible given that the author was not charged with any crime as required by article 14 (2). The request for compensation sought by the author and its subsequent denial does not equate to a presumption of guilt envisaged in article 14 (2) of the Covenant. Thus, the claims herein are incompatible ratione materiae. Lastly, the author failed to exhaust all administrative remedies in her domestic petitions concerning articles 22 (1, 2) and 26 and consequently, the Committee is precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
By Maricon Torres Lorenzo