CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 (d) Mr. Alarkhanov during the course of several interrogations, until he was provided with an interpreter on 11 June 2005. 7.6 The authors note that the State party pointed out that the authors had not requested interpreters. The authors note, however, that both the Covenant and the legislation of the Russian Federation do not require a formal request as a condition for the provision of assistance by an interpreter. The fact that four of the authors – Mr. Yashuev, Mr. Taysumov, Mr. Yusupov and Mr. Alarkhanov – needed the help of interpreters is evidenced by the fact that during one of the hearings, when the presiding judge asked the authors if they needed an interpreter, all of the authors except Mr. Temirbulatov and Mr. Barakhaev requested one. 7.7 Regarding the contention that the restraint measure in the form of pretrial detention was chosen by a court in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, the authors note that the State party refers to formal charges and arrests. It does not elaborate on the unlawful apprehension of the authors before the formal charges were brought. 7.8 In view of the State party’s lack of responses on the above-mentioned issues from the authors’ submissions, including the authors’ initial communication, the authors urge the Committee to find their complaint admissible, to issue its views on the merits and to request the State party to provide adequate measures of reparation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the communication constitutes an abuse to the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, since the authors failed to substantiate their claims sufficiently. The Committee finds that the material before it does not show that the authors presented their communication in bad faith, and that they provided all the information and documents at their disposal. Under these circumstances and in the light of the material on file, the Committee does not find that the authors abused their right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The Committee has further ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It notes that a similar communication has been submitted on the authors’ behalf to the European Court of Human Rights, but that it was declared inadmissible on 27 September 2012, as it did not satisfy the requirements established by articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under these circumstances, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that two of the authors – Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov – have failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies by not filing a supervisory review request before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies on this ground for the four remaining authors. 8.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which filing requests for a supervisory review with a court directed against court decisions that have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power of a judge constitute an extraordinary remedy, and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.10 The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party has not shown whether and in how many cases petitions to the president of the Supreme Court for supervisory review procedures were successful in cases of allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that 10 See Gelazauskas v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/77/D/836/1998), para. 7.4; Sekerko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/1851/2008), para. 8.3; Protsko and Tolchin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/19191920/2009), para. 6.5; Schumilin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1784/2008), para. 8.3; and P.L. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/102/D/1814/2008), para. 6.2. 9