CCPR/C/126/D/2383/2014 5.9 The author does not provide any clarification of his claims of violations of articles 10 (1) and 16 of the Covenant. 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 97 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. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In this regard, the Committee notes that, judging from the information on file, the author has not raised claims under articles 2 (1), 9 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (e), 17, and 26 of the Covenant before the domestic courts and finds these claims inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 Regarding the author’s claims under article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 7, and articles 7, 9 (3), 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has brought the relevant claims before the domestic authorities and courts (see paras. 2.7 and 5.1 above). The Committee considers that he therefore has exhausted all available domestic remedies on these claims. 6.5 The Committee notes that the author has not provided sufficient information on his claims under article 25 (b) of the Covenant and finds them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant concerning his alleged incommunicado detention. The Committee observes that the author’s lawyers and relatives knew of his whereabouts and that his lawyers were allowed to meet with the author, albeit in the presence of the investigators. In such circumstances, the Committee does not regard the author’s claim that his detention was incommunicado as substantiated. It thus finds this part of the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant unsubstantiated and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee further notes the lack of clarification from the author on the alleged violations of articles 10 (1) and 16 and finds these claims unsubstantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant and observes that the author included them in his comments on the State party’s observations and not in his first submission. The Committee nevertheless notes that the author provided, from the outset, facts that raise issues under these articles. The Committee considers the author’s claims under articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant sufficiently substantiated and admissible. 6.9 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the limited access of his lawyers to the detention facility where he was held and the lack of private meetings with his lawyers prevented him from preparing his defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author was released from the detention facility on 29 January 2011 and placed under house arrest. The court hearing for his case began some 3 months later, on 5 May 2011. The author does not allege a lack of private communication with his lawyers after the date of his release. The Committee considers that three months was a sufficient period of time for the author to prepare his defence. In view thereof, the Committee finds that the author’s allegations relate to his detention rather than to his right to defence covered under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant and finds his claim insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5