CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 7.1 On 30 January 2015, the author referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence that it is up to the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered. 3 The author is represented before the Committee by counsel practising in the Russian Federation, based on the power of attorney, in line with the Committee’s rules of procedure. A complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office is not an effective remedy, as it does not provide for a truly adversarial and independent review akin to judicial review. Therefore, it should not be a requirement that such a remedy be exhausted. As regards a judicial remedy, such a remedy in the author’s case is not available under domestic law. 7.2 On 2 May 2015, the author submitted that the State party’s observations of 26 March 2015 were identical to its observations of 17 December 2014. Therefore, the author refers to her comments of 30 January 2015. The author considers that by providing identical unsubstantiated observations, the State party has abused its right under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Lack of cooperation by the State party 8.1 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that there are no legal grounds for consideration of the author’s communication, insofar as it was registered in violation of the Optional Protocol, in particular because the communication was not submitted by the author herself but by counsel and because domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The Committee also notes the State party’s statement that it has discontinued its proceedings in relation to the present communication before the Committee. 8.2 The Committee recalls its practice, as reflected in rule 96 (b) of its rules of procedure, that individuals may be represented by a person of their choice, provided that the representative is duly authorized. A communication submitted on behalf of an alleged victim may also be accepted when it appears that the individual in question is unable to submit the communication personally. Implicit in a State’s adherence to the Optional Protocol is the undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications, and after examination thereof, to forward its Views to the State party concerned and to the individual (see art. 5 (1) and (4)). 4 It is incompatible with those obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of a communication, and in the expression of its Views. 5 It is for the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered. The Committee observes that, by refusing the right of an individual to be represented and by failing to accept the competence of the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered, the State party has violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.6 Consideration of admissibility 9.1 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. 9.2 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. 9.3 With regard to the requirement set out in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author had not appealed, 3 4 5 6 4 See Stambrovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1987/2010), para. 5.2. See, mutatis mutandis, Lozenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1929/2010), para 5.2. See, inter alia, Padilla and Sunga v. Philippines (CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999), para. 5.1; and Turchenyak et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/108/D/1948/2010), para. 5.2. See, for example, M.J. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/121/D/2471/2014), para. 8.4.