CCPR/C/114/D/2395/2014 will neither reduce nor increase the risk of death from the health conditions affecting him. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 By letter of 5 March 2015, the author submitted comments on the merits of the communication and reiterated his previous pleadings. 7.2 The author reiterates that, because of his frail health and advanced age, he is now held permanently in the Armed Forces Central Hospital, and the State party has not followed the ICRC recommendation to grant him house arrest immediately, despite several requests from him and the fact that the recommendations were brought to the attention of the Criminal Enforcement Court (First Rota). In the author ’s view this refusal demonstrates the lack of impartiality of the State party’s authorities. 7.3 Unlike other convicted prisoners, the author has not had any special exit permit since the time of his arrest, even for the deaths of close family members. 7.4 The author argues that article 2 of the Covenant has been violated by the State party, since the criminal proceedings taken against him, as well as the adoption of legislation such as Act No. 18831, were part of a campaign of political persecution by the Government of the State party. In that context, the State party is seeking to ignore basic standards of criminal law, such as the statute of limitations, the principle of ne bis in idem and the non-retroactivity of criminal legislation. 7.5 The author adds that the prosecutor in the trial was dismissed from office by the regime that governed the State party between 1973 and 1985 and that her husband was a prisoner during that period, so she should have recused herself from the proceedings for lack of impartiality. 7.6 The author claims that the State party cannot ignore Acts Nos. 15737 and 15848, which made it possible to restore democracy and peace in the country. Moreover, the failure to repeal Act No. 15737, which granted amnesty to a group of persons, and allowed them to escape trial for serious criminal offences, implies unequal treatment of persons who may have committed criminal offences in the period between 1973 and 1985, in violation of article 3 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of pro cedure, whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 As required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author ’s criminal trial was conducted in Court No. 19, that the sentence of that Court was appealed in the Court of Appeal, and that, subsequently, on 6 May 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the author ’s appeal in cassation. The Committee also notes that the State party has not submitted any objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims under article 2 of the Covenant, to the effect that the criminal proceedings against him, including the way in which the criminal law was applied, and the adoption of new legislation by the State party, such 10/13 GE.15-13662