CCPR/C/126/D/2306/2013 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. The State party claims that the author has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, arguing that he did not complain to the prosecutor’s office, the administration of the pretrial detention centre or the investigators. The Committee notes its long-standing jurisprudence that the requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies refers in the first place to the exhaustion of judicial remedies. 6 The Committee notes that the author filed several supervisory appeal requests to the Primorsky regional court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Considering the text of the court decisions and in the absence of other explanations or arguments from the State party in this connection, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by virtue of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee notes that the author has claimed that in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, he was brought to a police station and forced to confess that he was guilty of crimes, which was subsequently used to have him sentenced. The State party has refuted these allegations, in particular by noting that both during the investigation and in court on several occasions, the author confessed to being guilty of drug-related crimes. The author submits in several of his complaints to the courts that he was “pressured”, but does not provide any details regarding the alleged ill-treatment or torture. The Committee further notes, for example, the author’s claim before the Committee that his family members were threatened. The Committee notes from the transcripts of the court hearings, however, that both the author’s wife and his father testified during the court hearings (the author’s wife was present, and her earlier statement to the investigator was read out in court, with her consent and the consent of the author and his lawyer). The Committee notes that these testimonies do not indicate any threats whatsoever by the police or the investigators. In the absence of any other information of relevance on file, in particular a description of the manner in which the author was ill-treated or in which his family members were threatened, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated and therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee further considers the author’s claims under article 2 (3) (b) and 5 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that these articles cannot be invoked autonomously. The Committee has also noted the author’s claims under articles 9, 14 (3) (g) and (e) and (5), 17 (1) and 23 of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, his allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 6 6 See, for example, R.T. v. France (CCPR/C/35/D/262/1987), para 7.4.