CRPD/C/17/D/27/2015 none of the decisions of the doctors referred to in the author’s complaint revealed any material flaw. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol, for being manifestly illfounded or not sufficiently substantiated, as the author has not provided any evidence to indicate that she has been denied access to health care or legal redress on an equal basis with others. The Committee further takes note of the author’s argument that she has provided reliable evidence that the State party has violated her right to access specialist medical care and denied her legal redress and support. The Committee considers that the allegations raised by the author relate essentially to the evaluation of facts and evidence, in relation to the medical examination carried out and the treatment provided to the author in the State party. The Committee observes that it is not a final instance competent to reevaluate findings of fact or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.3 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of State party authorities amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Accordingly, these claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 Having thus concluded, the Committee will not examine separately the State party’s inadmissibility ground under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. C. Conclusion 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 3 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, communications No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2; No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6; No. 917/2000, Arutyunyan v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 5.7; and No. 1528/2006, Fernández Murcia v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 1 April 2008, para. 4.3. 9