ABSTRACT
The Committee has declared a number of communications inadmissible on grounds of non-substantiation: sometimes this is immediately apparent; in other cases, a more careful scrutiny will be required. Although non-substantiation is not mentioned in the Optional Protocol (O.P.) as a specific ground of inadmissibility, the Committee has used article 2 as the basis for cases which it has found inadmissible because they are totally unsubstantiated. The Committee has adopted the terminology of 'failure to advance a claim'. Non-substantiation has been invoked by the Committee in a wide variety of facts and circumstances to justify rejection of a communication. The Committee has used article 2 of the O.P. extensively to reject cases as inadmissible on the basis that the author has 'no claim' in a wide variety of facts and circumstances where it is manifest that no prima facie violation of the Covenant is revealed.
