CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the police interfered arbitrarily with Mr. Formonov’s privacy, family, home and correspondence by raiding their home on several occasions without a warrant; by seizing all human rights literature, unrelated to the extortion charges; and by knocking out unconscious the author who had to be hospitalized overnight. However, the material in the file does not allow the Committee to ascertain that those claims have been raised before the domestic courts. Accordingly, the Committee finds the claims under article 17 inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met for the remainder of the claims. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the State party has violated its obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7, since it failed to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 11 that the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked as a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. The Committee notes in that regard that the author claims a violation of article 2 (2) in conjunction with article 7 because the State party failed to take effective positive measures to prevent torture, to protect Mr. Formonov from torture and to properly investigate instances of torture and provide an effective remedy (see paragraph 3.2 above). The Committee considers, however, that the author has failed to provide sufficient information to substantiate those claims for purposes of admissibility, in a manner that would render them distinct from the claims that she has advanced under article 7. The Committee therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that her husband was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced on account of his human rights work, that the searches in his home were not properly authorized, that he was tortured and evidence against him manufactured, that his trial was marred by violations of his due process rights. The Committee considers that the author’s claims also raise issues under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, her claims under articles 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3); 9 (1); 14 (1), (2) and (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g); and 19 (2) of the Covenant, and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The author has claimed that the State party violated article 7, alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, as her husband, a human rights defender, who monitored trials and wrote pamphlets on human rights issues, was subjected to incommunicado detention for over one week after his arrest, during which he was tortured; and that after his conviction he was repeatedly and severely beaten, held in isolation and stripped of his clothing, handcuffed and held in an unheated prison cell for 23 days despite temperatures below freezing. In that connection, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that neither Mr. Formonov nor his lawyers had initially complained about his alleged torture and that his accusations about torture in his appeal complaint were examined in the course of the appeal hearing and were not found to be confirmed by the appeals court. The Committee, however, notes that the chosen counsel of the author and her husband, Mr. Yakubov, lodged several complaints to no avail; and that the author has presented the instances of torture in great detail, including information on how her husband was tortured, 11 See Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4. 11