CCPR/C/113/DR/2176/2012 the Committee to conclude that that decision was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim that the facts, as reported, constitute a violation by the State party of articles 7, 12, 14, paragraph 1, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. This part of the claim is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 As regards the alleged violations of articles 2 and 5 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that article 2 may not be invoked independently 12 and that article 5 relates to general undertakings by States parties and cannot be invoked by individuals as a selfstanding ground for a communication under the Optional Protocol. 13 The complaints are thus inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee further notes that the guarantees set out in article 14, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, do not apply to the facts as reported by the author 14 and that the author’s claims in this regard are therefore inadmissible ratione materiae. It concludes that all the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant are inadmissible in the light of articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author of the communication and to the State party. 12 13 14 8 See for example communication No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 7.3. See for example communication No. 854/1999, Wackenheim v. France, Views adopted on 15 July 2002, para. 6.5. See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 30 and 46. See also communication No. 450/1991, I.P. v. Finland, inadmissibility decision adopted on 26 July 1993, para. 6.2. GE.15-08734