CCPR/C/130/D/2731/2016 State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 18 February 2016, 3 February 2017, 28 May 2018 and 14 September 2018, the Committee requested the State party to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee regrets that the State party has failed to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or merits of the authors’ allegations. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.10 It recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that, for the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the author of a communication must make use of all administrative or judicial avenues that offer a reasonable prospect of redress. 11 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of any of the claims submitted. In addition, it takes note of the information and supporting documents provided by the authors regarding the complaints and requests that they filed, through their representatives, with various authorities of the State party, none of which appear to have led to the completion of the trial. The Committee notes that, in the 15 years that have elapsed since the trial for the murder of Pascal Kabungulu began on 28 November 2005, no decision has been handed down on the substance and it has not even been possible to locate the case file. It also notes that the authors were forced to flee the country and were granted refugee status in Canada, meaning that they could not be expected to seek judicial remedies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 12 The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the State party violated article 9 (1) of the Covenant by failing in its obligation to provide Pascal Kabungulu with appropriate protection before his death. It considers, however, that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their allegations in this regard and notes that Pascal Kabungulu does not appear to have taken any action before the national authorities in connection with the alleged threats to his security. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 However, the Committee finds that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their other allegations for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds to consider the merits of the claims made under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 of the Covenant. 10 11 12 6 Boudjemai v. Algeria (CCPR/C/107/D/1791/2008), para. 7.4. Colamarco Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2. Lumbala Tshidika v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012), para. 5.3. GE.21-00792