CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016 the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur Special on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee recalls that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council, and whose mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, or cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.14 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of the author’s case by the special rapporteurs does not render the present communication inadmissible under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol. 10.3 The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that the present communication should be held inadmissible under article 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol because it was not signed by the victim or a member of the victim’s family. The Committee also notes that, as highlighted by the author, the initial complaint was submitted together with a handwritten power of attorney clearly signed by his family. It further notes that the author is detained incommunicado, which has prevented him from providing a signed authorization or to submit his communication by himself. In such circumstances, and taking into account that communications may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, 15 the Committee concludes that the communication was submitted to it in accordance with the rules. 10.4 The Committee then notes that, according to the State party, the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author should have submitted his case to the Ministry of the Interior (crimecontrol bodies), the Office of Public Prosecution, the director of the prison in which he is detained, the “competent court”, the National Society for Human Rights and the Saudi Human Rights Commission. The Committee also notes, however, the author’s submission that none of these remedies would be efficient and available in his case. In particular, the Committee notes that the author’s family had already reported his case to the Ministry of the Interior and to the Saudi Human Rights Commission, but to no avail. It also notes the information submitted by the author according to which the General Directorate of Investigation, which is the control body of the Ministry of the Interior, the Saudi Human Rights Commission and the National Society for Human Rights lack independence and power in cases such as that of the author and could therefore not provide him with an independent and impartial remedy. The Committee also takes note of the author’s submission that the Office of Public Prosecution cannot be considered as an independent, impartial or appropriate avenue of redress for the author insofar as it requested the death penalty in the case against him, and as the author has submitted claims of abuse against the institution. The author further submits that the State party’s assertion that “effective means of redress are available” is contradicted by the testimonies of his family, according to which the author is held in 24-hour solitary confinement and subjected to abusive and inhuman treatment. The Committee additionally notes that the State party did not provide any information that would demonstrate the availability and efficiency of the remedies that it refers to in the case of the author. In view thereof, the Committee concludes that the remedies referred to by the State party would not be available for the author and that the communication is admissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. 10.5 The Committee finally notes the State party’s submission that the complaint is not supported by any evidence and should therefore be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. It notes, however, the author’s claim that, by failing to provide him with access to the necessary medical treatment following his torture, and by carrying out the criminal procedure against him without providing him with any procedural accommodation, the State party violated his rights as enshrined in the Convention, as he did not have the possibility to exercise his right of effective access to justice on an equal basis with others. The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently 14 15 8 See Human Rights Committee, Djebbar and Chihoub v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1811/2008), para. 7.2, and Krasovskaya and Krasovskaya v. Belarus (CCPR/C/104/D/1820/2008), para. 7.2. Rule 69 of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CRPD/C/1/Rev.1).