CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011 murder victim in another criminal case and because, during a criminal investigation in 2010, the same lawyer admitted appropriating the money paid to him for the defence of V.S. and falsifying an appointment order in the name of a colleague. The Committee, however, observes that based on the above-mentioned violations, the original verdicts against V.S. and V.L. were revoked, that they were tried again, that during the retrials they were assisted by lawyers of their choice and that they were convicted for a second time on 19 November 2010 and 26 March 2012 respectively. The Committee considers, therefore, that the authors have failed to provide sufficient substantiation of their claim of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant, and that the claim is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations that the second trials against V.S. and V.L. were unfair and that the courts failed to properly assess the evidence before them. The Committee, however, notes that the authors’ claims basically refer to the evaluation of the facts and the evidence, and the application of domestic legislation by the courts of the State party. The Committee recalls its case law, according to which it is for the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and the evidence in each case, or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 5 The Committee notes, however, that the materials on file, including the copies of the summary records and the verdicts, do not support the allegations of the authors. As it transpires from the file, during the retrial V.S. and V.L. were given the possibility of making statements in the presence of their lawyers and the judge. The Committee further notes that in pronouncing the verdicts against V.S. and V.L., the courts do not appear to have relied on the confessions made by them during the pretrial investigation. Nor does it appear that allegations of coercion were raised during the court proceedings. The Committee considers, therefore, that the authors have failed to provide sufficient substantiation of their claim of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant and that the claim is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims under articles 7, 10 (1) and 24 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The 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 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that during the pretrial investigation the investigating officer tortured the alleged victims in order to force them to confess, that they were repeatedly beaten, refused food and not given warm clothing; that while in pretrial detention their families were allowed to visit the boys only once, in November 2008, after the preliminary investigation had been already concluded; that during the visit they found that the boys were still wearing summer clothes, while the temperature outside was -15ºC and the cells were not heated; that during an interrogation the investigating officer broke the leg of V.S. and refused to provide medical assistance; and that all of the above constitute violations of articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee further notes that the alleged victims complained about the above-mentioned treatment to various 5 6 See communications No. 1616/2007, Manzano et al. v. Colombia, decision on admissibility adopted on 19 March 2010, para. 6.4; No. 1622/2007, L.D.L.P. v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.3; and No. 2358/2014, G.C.A.A. v. Uruguay, decision on admissibility adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 8.8.