CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013 the then-President Niyazov called the defendants “traitors”. Even the date of the trial and conviction is not clear — while the State party claims that the author was convicted on 17 August 2006, multiple sources, including family members, indicate that Ms. Muradova’s trial and conviction occurred on 25 August 2006. 5.5 The State party also failed to address the claims related to freedom of expression and retaliation for Ms. Muradova’s human rights work. 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 or not it 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that domestic remedies were not available to the author. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s argument that the present submission should not constitute an abuse of the right of submission under the provisions of rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee recalls that a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted after five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication unless there are reasons to justify the delay, taking into account all the circumstances of the communication. The Committee notes the author’s uncontested submission that Turkmen officials have claimed that some kind of domestic investigation has been conducted, but that the State party’s authorities have not disclosed any additional information regarding it. The Committee also notes the author’s claims that the family members received threats and feared reprisals from the State party’s authorities. Taking into account all the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee concludes that there are reasons to justify the delay in its submission and that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 2 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee concludes, however, that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim for the purposes of admissibility, and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated the claims under articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2), (3) (b) and (d) and (5) and 19 of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, first of all, the author’s contention that Ms. Muradova was tortured in detention, and died as a result of this torture and ill-treatment. The author provides a detailed description of the injuries on Ms. Muradova’s body, including the cut on her head and the signs of strangulation. The author suggests that these injuries on Ms. Muradova’s body indicate that she died as a result of physical violence. The Committee also notes the allegations that an autopsy was carried out after her death, and regrets that the State party neither refutes the author’s claim about physical violence, nor provides the results of the examination. The State party, instead of providing a detailed explanation of 7