7 take the initiative of freely resorting to the Commission, without any impediment or difficulty being raised by the State Party at issue21. 20. The right of individual petition is, thus, endowed with autonomy, distinct as it is from the substantive rights listed in title I of the European Convention. Any obstacle interposed by the State Party at issue to its free exercise would bring about, therefore, an additional violation of the Convention, parallel to other violations which become proved of the substantive rights enshrined in this latter. Its autonomy was in no way affected by the fact of having been originally foreseen in an optional clause of the Convention (Article 25). 21. In the second place, and reinforcing this point, both the European Commission and Court of Human Rights have understood that the concept itself of victim (in the light of Article 25 of the Convention) ought to be interpreted autonomously under the Convention. This understanding today finds solid support in the jurisprudence constante under the Convention. Thus, in several decisions in recent years, the European Commission has consistently and invariably warned that the concept of "victim" utilized in Article 25 of the Convention ought to be interpreted in an autonomous way and independently of concepts of domestic law such as those of the interest or quality to interpose a judicial action or to participate in a legal process22. 22. The European Court, in its turn, in the case Norris versus Ireland (1988), pondered that the conditions which govern individual petitions under Article 25 of the Convention "are not necessarily the same as national criteria relating to locus standi", which may even serve purposes distinct from those contemplated in the above-mentioned Article 2523. The autonomy of the right of individual petition at international level vis-à-vis provisions of domestic law thus clearly ensues therefrom. The elements singled out in this case-law of protection apply equally under 20. Compare the Judgment, of 20.03.1991, of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Cruz Varas and Others versus Sweden (Merits, Series A, vol. 201), pp. 33-34 and 36, pars. 92-93 and 99, with the Opinion, of 07.06.1990, of the European Commission of Human Rights in the same case (Annex, in ibid.), pp. 50-52, pars. 118, 122 and 125-126. The Commission went further than the Court, arguing, moreover, that, in failing to comply with a request of not deporting the individual complainant (H. Cruz Varas, Chilean), Suweden violated the obligation provided for in Article 25 in fine of the European Convention of not impeding the efficacy of the right of individual petition; the European Court, in a decision adopted by 10 votes to 9, did not agree with the Commission - in a less persuasive form than this latter - on this point in particular. 21. Cf. in this sense: European Commission of Human Rights (EComHR), case Scientology Kirche Deutschland e.V. versus Germany (appl. n. 34614/96), decision of 07.04.1997, 89 Decisions and Reports (1997) p. 170; EComHR, case Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma y R. Rose versus Germany (appl. n. 35208/97), decision of 27.05.1997, p. 4 (unpublished); EComHR, case Greek Federation of Customs Officials, N. Gialouris, G. Christopoulos and 3333 Other Customs Officials versus Greece (appl. n. 24581/94), decision of 06.04.1995, 81-B Decisions and Reports (1995) p. 127; EComHR, case N.N. Tauira and 18 Others versus France (appl. n. 28204/95), decision of 04.12.1995, 83-A Decisions and Reports (1995) p. 130 (petitions against the French nuclear tests in the atoll of Mururoa and in that of Fangataufa, in French Polinesia); EComHR, case K. Sygounis, I. Kotsis and Police Union versus Greece (appl. n. 18598/91), decision of 18.05.1994, 78 Decisions and Reports (1994) p. 77; EComHR, case Association of Air Pilots of the Republic, J. Mata el Al. versus España (appl. n. 10733/84), decision of 11.03.1985, 41 Decisions and Reports (1985) p. 222. - According to this same case-law, to fulfil the condition of "victim" (under Article 25 of the Convention) there ought to be a "sufficiently direct link" between the individual complainant and the alleged damage, resulting from the alleged violation of the Convention. 22. European Court of Human Rights, case Norris versus Ireland, Judgment of 26.10.1988, Series A, vol. 142, p. 15, par. 31.