CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By note verbale of 1 December 2009, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication, arguing that the author had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. Under the Procedural Code regarding administrative offences, decisions that have entered into force can be appealed under the supervisory review procedure within six months of their entry into force, but the author did not availed himself of that possibility. It maintains that the author did not avail himself of his right to appeal under the supervisory review procedure before the Prosecutor’s Office either. In that respect, the State party points out that over 10 months in 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office had introduced more than 120 motions against court decisions which had already entered into force in administrative cases, for which reviews were granted by the Supreme Court. The State party notes that the author did not appeal the refusal of the Supreme Court to initiate the review of his case under the supervisory review procedure, however, he did not provide further explanations. The State party also submits that the Law on Mass Events does not contradict the provisions of the Covenant; it notes that the rights protected under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant are not absolute and their enjoyment may be subject to limitations. 4.2 By note verbale of 6 April 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It states that the meeting in question was held in the “Vektor” bar located in the same building as the offices of BNF without prior authorization from the local authorities. It also states that the police action in stopping the meeting, apprehending the participants and subsequently fining the author were in compliance with the applicable law in Belarus in the interest of public order and to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The State party submits that, in putting an end to the meeting, the police officers did not use physical force or special equipment against the participants and those apprehended were not subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment whatsoever. The apprehension of the author of the present communication and the other participants was intended to stop their illegal activity, establish their identity and issue records regarding the administrative offences committed. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The State party’s observations on the merits were sent to the author on 22 July 2010 for his comments. The author was also reminded to submit his comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. On 19 February 2013, a second reminder was sent to the author to submit his comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 20 January 2014, another letter was sent to the author, requesting that he submit his comments without further delay. 5.2 On 27 March 2014, the author reiterated his initial claims. Regarding the State party’s observations challenging the admissibility of the communication, he submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies, including that provided by the Supreme Court and he does not consider the supervisory review procedure that may be initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office as an effective domestic remedy. He submits that, further to the Committee’s case law, he is not required to exhaust such a remedy. 5.3 Furthermore, the author submits that the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication are general in nature and do not provide specific arguments as to the aim of stopping the meeting organized by BNF, charging him with an administrative offence and fining him for his participation in the meeting in question. 4