CCPR/C/113/DR/2176/2012 the domestic authorities. The State party therefore considers that the communication is inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 In his comments on admissibility dated 5 December 2013, the author stated that the proliferation of ethical rules and their random application through arbitrary decisions are counterproductive because for every rule that exists there is another that contradicts it. He asserts that he was disbarred merely for asking clients to pay his fees, something which lawyers do on a regular basis, and that a dispute regarding the payment of fees is a civil matter that does not come within the jurisdiction of the Bar’s Disciplinary Board. He points out that his disbarment was decided on the basis of the version of the code of ethics that was in force at the time, but which has subsequently been abolished, since it was considered outdated and too discretionary. 5.2 The author considers that his disbarment is a disproportionate penalty and he reaffirms that he has not been convicted in criminal proceedings and that his presumption of innocence has not been respected. 5.3 The author reiterates the various allegations made in his initial submission. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the author has unsuccessfully challenged his disbarment before the competent professional and judicial authorities. The Committee therefore concludes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 6.4 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. In the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, the Committee observes that the author merely makes assertions without providing an explanation as to the link between the events described and his rights under articles 7, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 of the Covenant and any violations thereof. In respect of the allegations of breaches of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee observes that, according to its jurisprudence, it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that such evaluation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 11 In the present case, the author’s submissions regarding the principle of equality of arms before the Disciplinary Board of the Brussels Bar were very carefully considered by the Court of Cassation before it reached its decision on the proportionality of the penalty in the light of the seriousness of the charges against the author and there is no element which would allow 11 GE.15-08734 See, for example, communication No. 1329/2004 and 1330/2004, Pérez Munuera and Hernández Mateo v. Spain, inadmissibility decision adopted on 25 July 2005, para. 6.4; and communication No. 1540/2007, Nakrash and Liu v. Sweden, inadmissibility decision adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 7.3. 7