CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, completed with certain documentation. The Committee considers that filing requests for supervisory review to the president of a court directed against court decisions which have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power of a judge constitute an extraordinary remedy and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. 2 The State party has not shown, however, whether and in how many cases a petition to the President of the Supreme Court for supervisory review procedures were applied successfully in cases concerning the right to a fair trial or failure to investigate torture. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 7.6 The Committee further notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that, on 2 March 2011, a decision was taken to reopen the investigation into the torture allegations and the case file was sent to the Preobrazhensky Intraregional Investigative Department of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for additional investigation. The Committee, however, observes that no additional information has been provided by the State party as to the outcome of that investigation. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, for the purposes of article 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must both be effective and available, and must not be unduly prolonged.3 The Committee observes that in the instant case the investigation was reopened four and a half years after the alleged torture of the victim and that, to the Committee’s knowledge, those proceedings have yet to be finalized. Therefore, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that article 5 (2) (b) does not preclude it from considering the communication.4 7.7 The Committee notes that the author claims that there has been a violation of his rights under article 2 of the Covenant without clarifying the nature of the violation of this provision. It observes that the provisions of article 2, which lay down general obligations for States parties, cannot, in isolation, give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.5 In the absence of any further information on file, the Committee declares that part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 Finally, the Committee considers that the author’s remaining claims raising issues under articles 7 and 14 (1) and (3) (d) of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated 2 3 4 5 6 See communications No. 836/1998, Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, Views adopted on 17 March 2003, para. 7.4; No. 1851/2008, Sekerko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 8.3; Nos. 1919/2009 and 1920/2009, Protsko and Tolchin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 1 November 2013, para. 6.5; No. 1784/2008, Schumilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.3; and No. 1814/2008, P. L. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.2. See communications No. 2054/2011, Ernazarov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 March 2015, para. 8.3; and No. 612/1995, Villafañe Chaparro et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 29 July 1997, paras. 5.2, 8.8 and 10. See Ernazarov v. Kyrgyzstan, para. 8.3; communications No. 1560/2007, Marcellana and Gumanoy v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1250/2004, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, paras. 6.1 and 6.2; and No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 316/1988, C. E. A. v. Finland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 10 July 1991, para. 6.2; No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia, Views adopted on 3 April 2002; and No. 1213/2003, Sastre Rodríguez et al v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 28 March 2007, para. 6.6.