CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 Committee considers that the remedies concerned were both ineffective and unavailable to the author. 6.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.8 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the communication should be declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission (see para. 4.8 above). The Committee observes, however, that the fact that the State party and the author disagree on some facts and on the application of the law does not, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right of submission.22 In the absence of any other information in the file, the Committee considers that the communication does not constitute an abuse of the right to submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 Regarding the author’s allegations under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that they are not sufficiently substantiated and that they are based on the lack of guarantees during his detention and before any trial had been initiated. The Committee therefore considers that those allegations should be examined under article 9 of the Covenant.23 6.10 Given that all other admissibility criteria have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible, with regard to the alleged violations of articles 2 (3), 7, 8, 9, 10 and 24 (1) of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant that, while in detention and during police interrogations, when he was 14 years of age, he was subjected to acts of torture, including being punched all over his body, hit with plastic pipes on the soles of his feet (falanga) and subjected to electric shocks under his fingernails, and that he endured inhumane conditions of detention, including overcrowding, lack of medical care and precarious hygienic and alimentary conditions. The Committee notes that the State party denies that the author was tortured, arguing only that the forensic report of 13 September 2012 presented before the Kathmandu District Court did not show any kind of physical assault or injury and that it did not reveal any significant psychiatric morbidity, and that that was the reason for the Court not taking further action on the torture allegations. The Committee also notes, however, that the author provided a credible description of the torture he endured, as well as copy of the forensic report in question, which documented an abrasion on the author’s forearm and that he had a fever and was in a general state of depression. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 24 (1), of the Covenant. 7.3 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article 10 of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim regarding the failure of the State party authorities to conduct a thorough, impartial, independent and effective investigation into his torture allegations. It notes that the State party has not contested the author’s allegations as to the fact that the Kathmandu District Court and the police in Naxal did not launch an investigation into his torture complaints. The Committee considers that the State party has neither provided any explanation to challenge the author’s submissions nor conducted the necessary investigations into his torture allegations. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim regarding the failure of the State party to adopt adequate legislative measures to give effect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant and to remove obstacles in the existing legal framework concerning torture. The Committee 22 23 12 Views of the Committee in Arias Leiva v. Colombia (CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015), para. 10.4. Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 31.