3.2 Decisions on Admissibility The admissibility criteria as listed above are clear and relatively self-explanatory. The decisions of different regional mechanisms, particularly when States challenge admissibility of any communication from their citizens, help further clarify how these criteria are understood, interpreted and applied to cases before them. Often, the first response of States with regard to a treaty body communication of an alleged violation claimed by its citizen is to challenge the admissibility. The most common ground on which States challenge admissibility is non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. But the basis could also be any of the above-mentioned admissibility criteria i.e. non-applicability of the treaty obligation to the alleged event because it happened prior to its ratification of the treaty or that the application is made beyond the permissible time limitation. Some of the cases where States have raised admissibility issues on the said grounds are discussed below:Not within time-limit: Most human rights mechanisms have a time-limit within which the application has to be submitted after the last domestic remedy has been accessed and adjudged. The ECOWAS Court however, asserted the inalienable quality of human rights and that they therefore do not impose any time limitations. Although the case in question did not concern the time-limit of submission of application after the last remedy had been exhausted, it nevertheless addressed the question of when an application should be made. The State in the case of Hadijatou Mani Koroua v. Niger, claimed “that Hadijatou Mani was not competent to bring the case as, by the time she had submitted it, she was no longer a slave. The State had argued that by failing to submit her application while still a slave, she had rendered it ineffective”.44 The ECOWAS Court stated that “[i]t should be underlined that since human rights are inherent to the human being, they are ‘‘inalienable, inprescriptible and sacred’’ and do not suffer any limitation”.45 Continuing Violation: The Human Rights Committee (HRC) and other treaty bodies have expanded the scope of the criteria for admitting applications related to events that occurred prior to the entry into force for the State concerned of the individual complaints procedure. In Lovelace v. Canada 46 the HRC held that communication of violations committed prior to the date the State ratified the Optional Protocol, but which continued to have effects which themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant after that date, are admissible. The extension of the remedy to continuing violations is significant as it can open up possibilities for women to bring claims for past violence that is considered to be a permanent or continuous violation. For example, in Szijarto v. Hungary the CEDAW Committee ruled that forced sterilisation that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State Party was a continuing violation, and a communication on that basis was held to be admissible.47 Burden of Proof: The HRC, in another case, further clarified that the burden of proof for a showing of ‘continuing violation’ is shared between the complainant and the State Party, in acknowledgment that the latter has better access to specific information thereby balancing power between the two parties.48 Disparaging and insulting language: In its decision on admissibility in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights/ Zimbabwe(ZLHR), the ACHPR stated inter alia that: 44 Duffy, Helen ‘Hadijatou Mani Koroua v Niger: Slavery Unveiled by the ECOWAS Court, Human Rights Law Review(2008), Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 8. 45 Ibid. 46 Lovelace v. Canada, HRC Comm. No. 24/1977 (30 July 1981). See also J.L. v. Australia, HRC Comm. No. 491/1992 (28 July 1992). 47 Szijarto v Hungary, CEDAW Comm. No. 4/2004 (14 August 2006), para. 10.4; For a continuing pattern of violence see A.T. v. Hungary (CEDAW Comm. No. 2/2003 (2005)), para. 8.5. 48 Bleir v. Uruguay, HRC Comm. No. 30/1978 29 March 1982, para 13.3. 16 ADMISSIBILITY AND EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES | REDRESS