CCPR/C/115/D/1895/2009 4.8 On 12 August 2015 the author submitted further information to the Committee, to the effect that he had received a residence permit for Belgium, valid from 28 July 2015 to 28 July 2020, on the basis of his adoption by a Belgian national. 5 4.9 The author nevertheless wishes to have his communication considered by the Committee on the ground that his former wife, A.B.K. (second author) — from whom he has been divorced since 3 May 2012 6 — and his two minor daughters, N.U.R. and S.B.R., do not have a residence permit, even though both children were born in Belgium. Lack of cooperation from the State party 5. On 18 August 2009, 6 May 2010, 9 August 2010, 12 November 2010 and 24 October 2014, the State party was asked to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. It finds it regrettable that the State party has failed to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or substance of the author ’s claims. It recalls that, under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, the State party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and describing any measures it may have taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that these have been properly substantiated. 7 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 the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee reiterates its concern that, despite four reminders addressed to the State party, no ob servations on the admissibility or merits of the communication have been received. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes that the author has provided no information in support of his claim of a violation of article 2, paragraph 1. Furthermore, the Committee considers, in general, that the author ’s claim concerning the discriminatory intent that allegedly underlies the denial of his asylum applications has not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility under article 26. In relation to the claim under article 3, the Committee also considers that the author has put forward no argument in support of this allegation. Lastly, the author has similarly failed to __________________ 5 6 7 6/7 Pursuant to article 40 bis and ter of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens, and article 52, read in conjunction with article 69 ter, of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens. The author was married to A.B.K. at the time of submission of his communication to the Committee in July 2009. See, for example, communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 4; No. 1208/2003, Kurbonov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 16 March 2006, para. 4; and No. 760/1997, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, Views adopted on 25 July 2000, para. 10.2. GE.15-21844