CCPR/C/113/D/2079/2011 Turkmenistan issued a pardon with regard to Sapardurdy Khadzhiev. Based on the pardon, Mr. Khadzhiev was released from prison.6 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party informed it that the Supreme Court of Turkmenistan had rejected the author’s appeal on 20 September 2006. The State party thus does not challenge the admissibility of the communication on that basis. 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. 7.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e), of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the State party has not specifically refuted the author’s allegations. The Committee considers, however, that the information on file regarding those claims is very limited. It notes, for example, that the author has not specified which witnesses for the defence were prevented from testifying during the court hearings. Similarly, he has not indicated whether or not he was brought before a judge to assess the legality of his detention. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate those particular claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee considers that the author’s remaining claims raising issues under article 7; article 9, paragraph 1; article 10, paragraph 1; and article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares that part of the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication 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. 8.2 The Committee notes, first of all, the author’s claims regarding the torture and illtreatment to which he was subjected following his arrest and his claim that both his lawyer and himself were put under pressure in an attempt to force him to confess his guilt for crimes that he did not commit. It also notes that the State party has not provided specific observations regarding the author’s claims of torture and mistreatment, but has merely 6 6 In an additional submission dated 17 March 2014, the State party repeats its claim regarding the author’s release based on the presidential pardon. The State party also submits that the author’s appeal was considered by the Supreme Court of Turkmenistan, which rejected the author’s claims on 20 September 2006.