CCPR/C/125/D/2313/2013 during his trial. However, the court sided with the case investigator, who testified that copies of both documents had been given to the author. 5.3 The author further submits that he has petitioned the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court to find articles 384 and 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code unconstitutional because they violate his right to judicial protection, as only the prosecutor’s office can reopen criminal cases based on new evidence. The author argues that since the Constitution provides for judicial protection of his rights and freedoms, domestic courts should also be able to reopen criminal cases based on new evidence, as the prosecution will never be interested in reopening a case where it has already obtained a conviction. On 7 February 2014, his petition was rejected and articles 384 and 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code were declared constitutional. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims of ill-treatment by the State Financial Police on 4 and 6 June 2009. The author raised these allegations before national authorities, as indicated notably in the Sverdlovskiy district court verdict of 14 October 2010, and they are not refuted by the State party. The Committee notes that the court did not refer the case for further investigation. The Committee notes, however, that the author’s allegations based on article 7 of the Covenant are general in nature and are not supported by any medical evidence. Based on the material before it, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the author was subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the absence of more precise information or documentation from the author in this respect, the Committee concludes that the author’s allegations under article 7 have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims concerning his incommunicado detention between 4 and 22 June 2009, the conditions of his detention at the pretrial detention facility “SIZO No. 1” in Bishkek and the alleged undue delay of his trial for over a year. The Committee observes, however, that these claims do not appear to have been raised at any point throughout the domestic proceedings. This part of the communication, raising issues under articles 10 and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, is accordingly declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust all domestic remedies in accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claims in relation to the alleged lack of impartiality of domestic courts and on unfair trial. In particular, it notes the author’s disagreement with the sentence against him, the assessment of his alibi and material evidence, and numerous postponements of trial due to failure of the victim and witnesses to attend court hearings. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of the State party to the Covenant to review facts and evidence or to apply domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application is clearly arbitrary or amounts to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court has otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. 13 In the present case, the Committee observes that the material before it does not allow it to conclude that the examination of the evidence and questioning of witnesses by the court reached the threshold for arbitrariness in the 13 See, inter alia, Tyan v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011), para. 8.10. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 26. 5