CCPR/C/119/D/2586/2015 degrading treatment not only for the victim but also for the victim’s relatives owing to the emotional stress and mental suffering it has caused them. 3.3 The authors also claim a violation of article 9 of the Covenant, since the disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko represents an arbitrary and unlawful arrest by the State party’s officials. Furthermore, they note that Mr. Zakharenko was never brought before a judge and was unable to initiate proceedings before a court. 3.4 The authors further claim a violation of article 10 of the Covenant as the State party officials did not treat Mr. Zakharenko with humanity and respect for his dignity, and that it is likely he was killed while in their hands. 3.5 They claim a violation of article 26 of the Covenant since Mr. Zakharenko was the victim of enforced disappearance — and had no equal and effective protection against discrimination on political grounds — owing to his political opinions. 3.6 The authors also claim all of the above violations in conjunction with article 2 (1). The Committee considers that, in fact, the present submission raises issues under article 2 (3) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 7 May 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication arguing that it had been submitted by a third party and not the individual himself, as required by article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It submits that the Committee does not have the competence to consider communications submitted by third parties. 4.2 The State party also argues that the communication is inadmissible owing to nonexhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, without specifying which domestic remedies have not been exhausted by the authors. On that basis, the State party submits that it will “suspend further consideration” of the present communication. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 10 August 2015, the authors challenged the State party’s argument that the communication had been submitted by a third party, arguing that, since Mr. Zakharenko had been missing for 16 years, he should be legally considered dead, and that he could not submit a communication. They further claim that no provision of the Optional Protocol prevents the authors from authorizing a third person to act before the Committee as their representative. 5.2 The authors reiterate their position that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies, with regard to Mr. Yuri Zakharenko under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 26 of the Covenant and under article 7 with regard to the authors’ claims. They further resubmit that all available domestic remedies that they have exhausted were in any case unreasonably prolonged. The disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko was reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. They note that the investigation and prosecution into his disappearance have yielded no results in more than 16 years. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (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 disappearance of Mr. Zakharenko has been reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. However, it recalls that extraconventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council, and whose 4