CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014 department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to the State party, the investigation was completed on 11 May 2017, and the results were being reviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor General. 6.9 The State party submits that on the basis of the above, one cannot conclude that the authorities are ignoring the author’s arguments about his innocence, nor that they have purposefully avoided sending the author’s case for a judicial review to the Supreme Court. The State party notes that the author’s guilty verdict has been upheld both by the Chuy regional court and the Supreme Court and that it cannot be appealed further, unless new circumstances are discovered. However, before the Supreme Court can hear the case again, the prosecutor’s office must investigate any new evidence and agree to send the case for a new judicial hearing. Additional information from the author 7. On 24 August 2020, the author submitted a copy of the decision by the Supreme Court dated 18 February 2020, rendered on the motion of the author’s counsel to reopen the case on the basis of new circumstances. The Supreme Court denied the author’s motion, ruling that the claims made by the author could not be considered to be new circumstances, given that the pieces of evidence contained in the case were reliable and confirmed one another. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that since there is an ongoing investigation based on new circumstances in the author’s case, the domestic remedies cannot be considered exhausted and that therefore, the communication should be declared inadmissible. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that since 2010, the investigation based on new circumstances has resulted in his case being reopened and closed on several occasions. The Committee observes that even though all new evidence presented by the author and his lawyers appears to trigger the reopening of the case and investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State party has not been able to show that there is a reasonable prospect that those numerous investigations would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case since none of them resulted in a judicial hearing by the Supreme Court. In view of those circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, nor was his family informed of his whereabouts immediately after his arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant. However, from the information before it, the Committee notes that the author had never raised these claims before the domestic authorities prior to the submission of the present communication. In that respect, the Committee considers that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies concerning his claims under article 9 (2) of the Covenant and finds them inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 Similarly, with respect to the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, the Committee finds it inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol because the claim was not raised before the domestic authorities prior to the submission of the present communication. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his right to be presumed innocent was violated, since he was labelled as a killer and rapist by numerous media outlets long before 6