CCPR/C/114/D/2395/2014 19. Consequently, the Committee considers that this part of the author ’s claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.9 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims that he was unable to mount a defence, as the evidence used against him was gathered with no regard for due process, no oversight by the defence and no certainty as to its authenticity or provenance, and that he did not have access to the file. The Committee notes that the author has not explained to the Committee in what way his right to a defence was restricted in the course of the criminal proceedings, and his c laims are not supported by any documentation that might lead to the conclusion that his right to a defence was, in fact, impaired by the State party’s authorities. The Committee therefore considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated this cl aim for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.10 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7, and the remainder of the author ’s complaint, which raises significant issues with respect to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Given that no other impediments to admissibility exist, the Committee finds them admissible. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the case in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claim that the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment amounts, in practice, to life imprisonment and that, given his advanced age and frail health, the denial of house arrest, in spite of a recommendation by the International Committee of the Red Cross, is a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s contentions that, from the time of the author ’s pretrial detention to the present day, it has taken the necessary steps to protect his life, personal safety, and physical and psychological integrity and guarantee him decent treatment, and that house arrest is an exceptional measure to be used in cases where the person’s life is in danger or he or she is in extremely poor health. 9.3 The Committee notes that the courts determined the author’s sentence in accordance with the law and in proportion to the seriousness of the criminal offences committed and the harm caused. At the same time, the Committee notes that the author has a number of ailments and is in frail health, and that medical reports state that his life is at risk and that he could succumb to sudden death. However, the author is not being held in an ordinary prison but rather for the past three years has been serving his sentence in the Military Hospital. The author has not claimed to the Committee that the care and medical treatment at the Military Hospital are inadequate, or adduced any convincing evidence that might so indicate, and has not explained why his life or integrity would be at less risk under house arrest. Nor has he claimed that the authorities wish to transfer him to prison. Consequently, and given the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee does not have sufficient information to find a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 9.4 With reference to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s claims that the judicial authorities were not impartial, since his conviction and sentence were based on testimony from biased witnesses and information from one-sided newspaper research and biased publications; that in most of the proceedings against military and police personnel, the prosecutor has been 12/13 GE.15-13662