ABSTRACT
Article 3 of the Optional Protocol (O.P.) states that the Committee 'shall consider inadmissible any communication under the O.P. which is anonymous'. A decision to terminate or suspend consideration of a communication may be taken without referring the case to the State Party for its observations. In Aumeeruddy-Czijfra et al. v Mauritius the Committee agreed to withhold the identity of the 19 other authors from the State Party. Under article 3 of the O.P. the Committee must declare a communication inadmissible which 'it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications'. States Parties have requested sometimes that communications or parts of them should be declared inadmissible on grounds of abuse but the Committee has refrained from doing so always, thus displaying considerable generosity to authors. The explicit connection between no 'fourth instance' and inadmissibility for incompatibility under article 3 of the O.P. was made again in D.S. v Jamaica.
