Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2508/2014 allegations of torture received by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka during the same period (2,259 cases).4 3.7 The author further claims that he had to endure significant physical and mental suffering as a result of the ill-treatment inflicted upon him by the Sri Lankan authorities that continues to this day. He informs that his eye had to be removed and this fact has a significant impact on his employment opportunities. 3.8 In terms of the remedies sought, the author invites the Committee to order the State party to bring perpetrators to justice and issue a public apology, to provide him with adequate compensation for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and to ensure that he has access to full rehabilitation, including psychological counselling. Lack of cooperation from the State party 4. By notes verbales of 16 December 2014, 22 December 2015, 23 May 2016, 17 July 2018 and 23 July 2020 the State party was requested to submit information to the Committee on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them, and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. It recalls that in the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 5.2 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. 5.3 In the absence of any submission by the State party on the admissibility of the communication, and noting the author’s statement that domestic remedies have proven to be ineffective or unduly prolonged, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the State party violated his right under article 26 of the Covenant, since, as a detainee, he had been subjected to torture with impunity, which is more likely to occur in case of prisoners than any other group of persons and that there is no reasonable and objective justification for such differential treatment. The Committee considers, however, that the author failed to produce an actual comparator, i.e. a person in a comparable situation, for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case. In this respect, the Committee considers that it is not possible to establish a comparison of treatment between persons in detention and persons who are not in detention since they are not in similar situation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 of the Covenant and declares that his allegations are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations under articles 7 and 9 taken alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with their consideration on the merits. 4 The author refers to the Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Sri Lanka of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/LKA/CO/5) para. 19. 5