CCPR/C/125/D/2448/2014 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 January 2016, the authors noted that the State party did not contest the facts as set out in the communication. Neither did the State party dispute that both authors had been denied their right to obtain a copy of the case materials for their respective cases, which included the documents and “evidence” obtained during the criminal investigation as well as all materials from the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the authors consider that the Committee should accept the facts as stated by them. 3 5.2 The authors note that the State party takes no position on the admissibility of the communication and reiterate that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 5.3 The authors refer to the detailed and credible arguments in their initial submission. They claim that the State party does not dispute or respond to any of their arguments that prove a violation of their rights under article 14 (1), (3) (d) and (e) and (5) and article 18 read in conjunction with article 26, and article 7 claimed separately by the second author. 5.4 Finally, the authors reiterate their request to the Committee to conclude that their prosecution, conviction and imprisonment under article 164 of the Criminal Code has violated their rights under the Covenant, as stated above, and to direct the State party to provide them with an effective remedy, giving full recognition to their rights, notably: to disclose fully their respective criminal files, to acquit them of the charges brought under article 164 (2) of the Criminal Code, to expunge their criminal records, and to provide suitable monetary compensation for the moral damages they have suffered as a result of their wrongful conviction and imprisonment and for the legal expenses and fees they have incurred. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee has noted the authors’ claims under article 14 (5) of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, their remaining claims under article 7, article 14 (1) and (3) (d) and (e), and article 18 read in conjunction with article 26, declares them admissible, and proceeds to consider them on their merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims under articles 14 (1) (3) (d) and (e) and 18 of the Covenant that by prosecuting, convicting and imprisoning them on fabricated charges 3 4 The authors refer to Abdullayev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012), paras. 7.3–7.5.