CCPR/C/128/D/2384/2014 3.3 The author further claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant by failing to assign him a lawyer until he was brought before a judge on 21 May 2009, although he had been interrogated on several occasions between 17 and 21 May 2009. He submits that the police report of his arrest dated 20 May 2009 was submitted by the police both at his trial and at the trial of the four police officers. The copy of the report submitted at his trial contains a note by the investigator that the author’s lawyer had refused to sign the report. However, the copy of the same report submitted by the police in the trial of the four police officers does not have the same note by the investigator. The author argues that such a discrepancy shows that his arrest report was falsified and that, on 20 May 2009, he did not have a lawyer. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. By notes verbales of 30 April 2014, 18 February 2015, 20 November 2015 and 5 January 2016, the Committee requested the State party to submit to it information and observations on the admissibility and the merits of the present communication. The Committee notes that such information has not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the merits of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they have been properly substantiated.5 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 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 5.2 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. 5.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims concerning the failure of the State party to provide him with legal assistance. The Committee observes, however, that those claims do not appear to have been raised at any point in the domestic proceedings. That part of the communication, raising issues under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant, is accordingly declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust all domestic remedies in accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee also takes note of the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate those allegations, for the purposes of admissibility, however, and finds them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares those claims admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that, while he was in detention between 17 and 18 May 2009, four police officers tortured him and forced him to confess to 5 4 See, for example, Sannikov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012), para. 4.