CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 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. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds that the author did not appeal the decision of the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure.2 The Committee also notes that, on 3 April 2008, the author appealed to the President of the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure and his appeal was rejected on 21 May 2008. The Committee further notes the author’s explanation that supervisory review procedures with the Supreme Court are ineffective in cases such as his. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence3 in which it has stated that filing requests for supervisory review to the President of a court against court decisions which have entered into force and depending on the discretionary power of a judge constituted an extraordinary remedy, and that it is up to the State party to show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition to a Prosecutor’s Office to initiate the procedure to review court decisions that have taken effect does not constitute a remedy which has to be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.4 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by said article from examining this part of the communication. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s general claim that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant have been violated due to the manner in which he was treated by the police during his apprehension. The Committee also notes that the State party maintains that no physical force or special equipment were used against the participants in the meeting and that those apprehended were not subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore, in the absence of any pertinent information on file to support the author’s claim, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate his claims under article 7 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated as the courts were not independent and impartial: his request to hear a witness — the organizer of the meeting (who was also detained at the time) — and 2 3 4 See paragraph 4.1 above. 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.; No. 19191920/2009, 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; No. 1814/2008, P.L. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted 26 July 2011, para. 6.2; No. 2021/2010, E.Z. v. Kazakhstan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3. Communications No. 1873/2009, Alekseev v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 25 October 2013, para. 8.4; No. 1985/2010, Koktish v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 7.3. 5