CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016 sector. Referring to public reports on these institutions, 13 and stressing its reduced mandate and power, the author considers that it would be unreasonable to expect that an appeal to the National Society for Human Rights would be relevant in his case. 8.7 Regarding the State party’s argument that the author had access to a lawyer paid at no expense, the author submits that the formal courtroom presence of a defence lawyer is irrelevant to the matters raised in the communication, namely that he was never allowed to communicate with his attorney; that he was tortured; that his coerced confession extracted under torture was used to convict him at trial; that he was denied due process of law; and that, throughout the process, the Saudi authorities failed to provide him with the necessary procedural accommodation, health support and rehabilitation services in accordance with the Convention. 8.8 The author expressed his fear that the State party would probably execute him in the near future, in contravention of the interim measures requested by the Committee to not carry out the author’s death sentence while his case was under consideration by the Committee. On 25 May 2017, the Specialized Criminal Court upheld the death sentence on appeal. On 12 June 2017, the State party transferred the author to solitary confinement, where he has remained, with the obvious effect of further restricting information about developments in his situation. Since then, his family has not been able to visit or speak to him on the telephone. The author also indicates that the State party has increased its rate of executions. On 10 July 2017, death sentences was carried out against six prisoners; and another four were executed the following day. On 23 July 2017, the High Court confirmed the author’s death sentence. This ruling is final and cannot be appealed. Reiteration of interim measures and additional observations by the author 9.1 On 10 August 2017, the Committee reiterated its request for interim measures, recalling to the State party that the request for interim protection remained in effect until the examination of the complaint by the Committee. 9.2 On 10 September 2017, the author informed the Committee that, on 14 July 2017, he was transferred from the General Directorate of Investigation’s Al Dammam facility to a detention centre in Riyadh, together with 13 persons sentenced to death. On 13 August 2017 the author was returned to Al Dammam. The reasons behind these transfers remain unclear. The author remains in solitary confinement, while the other death-row detainees have been returned to the general prison population. Additionally, he has not been allowed to receive any family visits since 4 June 2017. Since the time of his transfer to Riyadh, he has only been able to call his family once. The author considers that he has been treated worse than others in retaliation for having raised his case before a United Nations treaty body. 9.3 On 20 October 2017, the author informed the Committee that, on 18 October 2017, he was released from solitary confinement. The following day, 19 October, he received the first visit from his family since 4 June 2017. He welcomed these developments. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In this connection, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s complaint should be held inadmissible as the same matter is pending before the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, 13 See, inter alia, Ibrahim al-Mugaiteeb and Cristoph Wilcke, “Saudi justice”, Human Rights Watch, online commentary, 16 April 2006. Available at www.hrw.org/news/2006/04/16/saudi-justice. 7