CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee must ascertain that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the case of Mr. Shikhmuradov was submitted to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. 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 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.4 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the present case under this provision. 5.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that, despite three reminders addressed to the State party, no observations on the admissibility and/or the merits of the communication have been received. In the circumstances, given the author’s continuing unsuccessful efforts, and in the absence of a challenge by the State party to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 As to the alleged violations of article 9 of the Covenant in relation to the initial detention of Mr. Shikhmuradov, the Committee considers that, even if the State party has not refuted the author’s allegations, based on the limited information contained on file, the author’s allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it considers that this claim has been insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee considers that the author’s remaining claims regarding violations of Mr. Shikhmuradov’s rights under article 6 (para. 1), article 7, article 9 in relation to his detention after his conviction, article 14 (paras. 1 and 5) and article 15, as well as the claims regarding the violation of the author’s rights under articles 7 and 17, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares those claims admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. 4 6 Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 4; communication No. 1776/2008, Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 20 October 2010, para. 4.2; communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 4; communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 4; communication No. 1208/2003, Kurbonov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 16 March 2006, para. 4; and communication No. 760/1997, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, Views adopted on 25 July 2000, para. 10.2. See, inter alia, communication No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2; communication No. 1776/2008, Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 20 October 2010, para. 6.2; and communication No. 540/1993, Celis Laureano v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 7.1.