CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible since it was submitted to the Committee by third parties and not by the alleged victim himself. In this respect, the Committee recalls that rule 96 (b) of its rules of procedure provides that a communication should normally be submitted by the individual personally or by that individual’s representative, but that a communication submitted on behalf of an alleged victim may, however, be accepted when it appears that the individual in question is unable to submit the communication personally. 10 In the present case, the Committee notes that the alleged victim at the time of the submission was detained on death row; that the communication was submitted on behalf of the alleged victim by his mother and a counsel, who have presented a duly signed letter of authorization and a power of attorney for the counsel by the alleged victim to represent him before the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 7.4 The State party argues that, by submitting a communication to the Committee before her son had submitted to the Supreme Court a request for a supervisory review, the author has abused her right of submission. Given the circumstances of the present case and the subsequent execution of the victim, the Committee does not see how the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. The Committee further notes that this argument relates rather to the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. In the absence of any valid reason offered as to why the present communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, the Committee is of the view that the case is not inadmissible on this ground. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that Mr. Zhuk had not exhausted all domestic remedies at the time of submission of the communication in view of the fact that he had not submitted an application for a supervisory review. In this regard, the Committee reiterates its previous jurisprudence, according to which the State party’s supervisory review is a discretionary review process 11 and as such does not constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. Therefore, the Committee is not precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, from considering the communication. 7.6 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations under articles 6 (paras. 1 and 2), 7, 9 (para. 3) and 14 (paras. 1, 2 and 3 (b), (d) and (g)) of the Covenant in respect of her son have been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to their examination on the merits. 10 11 See, inter alia, communication No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 10.2. See, for example, communications No. 1812/2008, Levinov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 7.3, and No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 10.4. 9