CCPR/C/125/D/2901/2016 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 the communication 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 and that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible because, given that the author voluntarily left the State party’s territory and currently resides in Austria, he is no longer subject to removal by the State party to Bulgaria. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a person can only claim to be a victim in the sense of article 1 of the Optional Protocol if he or she is actually affected. 7 The Committee observes that, because the author has left the State party’s jurisdiction, he does not face a foreseeable removal by the State party that could expose him to a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that his claim under article 7 is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was denied access to an effective remedy, in violation of article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. Taking into account the inadmissibility of the author’s claim under article 7, the Committee considers that it is precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining this aspect of the claim. The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence stating that the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant lay down general obligations for States parties and cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. 8 For this reason, the Committee finds the author’s claim under article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant, inadmissible under articles 1 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.9 6.5 The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 3 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 7 8 9 Human Rights Committee, Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius, communication No. 35/1978, para. 9.2; and Human Rights Committee, Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, communication No. 61/1979, para. 9.3. Ch.H.O. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.4; and X v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/113/D/1961/2010), para. 6.6. In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7