CCPR/C/120/D/2941/2017 4.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4.3 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 2, 3, 5, 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g) and (5), 16 and 26 of the Covenant relate in substance to the evaluation of facts and evidence in the course of proceedings before the State party’s courts. The Committee recalls that “it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality”.1 The Committee observes that the author has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the conduct of the judicial proceedings in his case suffered from such deficiencies. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 2, 3, 5, 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g) and (5), 16 and 26 are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that his rights under articles 3, 5, 16 and 26 have been violated since the police refused to provide him with protection from the domestic violence allegedly carried out by his ex-wife. However, the Committee considers that the author failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims in that regard for the purpose of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the author’s claims under articles 3, 5, 16 and 26 inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 Regarding the author’s claims under articles 7, 17 and 19 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s submission that the fact that he did not get the Working with Children Assessment Notice and Driver Accreditation for seven years has caused him mental suffering and a huge financial loss. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the police threat to use physical force against him to carry out a false and fraudulent DNA court order would, if implemented, violate article 7 of the Covenant. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the author has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies with regard to these allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claims under articles 7, 17 and 19 of the Covenant are inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 1 4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.