CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the 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. 5.2 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 anoth er procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 With regard to the obligation to exhaust all domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of any of the claims made. It takes note, in addition, of the information and attachments furnished by the author in connection with the complaints that he filed, through his brother, with the Attorney General of the Republic, none of which appears to have led to an inquiry. It also notes that the author was forced to escape the country and was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and thus could not be expected to pursue judicial remedies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee therefore finds that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol do not prevent it from examining the communication. 5.4 With regard to the author ’s allegations under article 19 and to the fact that he was detained arbitrarily and tortured because of opinions he held that were contrary to the interests of senior officials at Banque Congolaise and in the Government of the State party, the Committee considers that those allegations and their connection with article 19 were not substantiated for purposes of admissibility. The Committee thus considers this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 With regard to the author ’s allegation that the State party has not met its obligations under articles 7 and 9, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant inasmuch as it has not enacted legislation or taken measures to give effect to the rights acknowledged in those provisions, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, which indicates that the provisions of article 2, which lay down general obligations for States parties, cannot, in and of themselves, give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. 11 The Committee also considers that the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked jointly with other provisions of the Covenant in a communication under the Optional Protocol, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual who claims to be a victim. 12 In the case at hand, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated the claim that examination of the question of whether the State party also violated its general obligations under article 2, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with articles 7 and 9, would be distinct from examining a violation of the author ’s rights under articles 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author ’s claims in this regard are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and are thus inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. __________________ 11 12 GE.15-22873 See communication No. 2202/2012, Castañeda v. Mexico, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 6.8; communication No. 1834/2008, A.P. v. Ukraine, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4. See, in particular, communication No. 2030/2011, Poliakov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 17 July 2014, para. 7.4; and communication No. 1982/2010, Mikhalchenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 7.5. 9/17