CCPR/C/112/D/2105/2011 the authors’ non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since their application for amparo was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it was irremediably flawed because they had failed to demonstrate its special constitutional relevance. The State party also argues that the authors did not allege a violation of the right to a second hearing either in their cassation appeal or in their application for amparo. The Committee recalls its settled jurisprudence, according to which it is necessary to exhaust only those remedies that have a reasonable prospect of success. The authors’ application for amparo did not have a reasonable prospect of success in respect of a possible violation of article 14, paragraph 5, given the Constitutional Court’s case law. 6 In addition, the Committee observes that the authors challenged the Murcia Provincial Court judgement through an appeal in cassation, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2009, and that they subsequently submitted an application for amparo against this judgement, which was found inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 24 February 2010. The Committee therefore finds that there is no impediment under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol to consideration of the present communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that they were denied the right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, since they had access only to the remedy of cassation before the Supreme Court, which in practice implied a denial of the right to appeal against the conviction handed down by Murcia Provincial Court. The Committee further notes the State party’s arguments that the remedy of cassation allows the Supreme Court to review the evidence considered by the lower court extensively, since it is possible to review judgements with regard to the facts, the evidence and points of law. 8.5 The Committee observes that, in its judgement of 16 October 2009, the Supreme Court examined all the grounds for cassation put forward by the authors, including respect for the principle of ne bis in idem, the refusal to admit documentary evidence submitted by the authors and the classification of the penalty imposed. The Supreme Court did not restrict its examination to the formal aspects of the Murcia Provincial Court judgement and found that there was sufficient evidence to uphold the assessment of the facts made by the court of first instance, that the authors had failed to provide evidence showing that the interpretation of the facts by the court of first instance was erroneous, and that nevertheless there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there were aggravating circumstances under article 250, paragraph 1, subparagraph 7, of the Criminal Code. The Court therefore upheld the sentence imposed by Murcia Provincial Court with the exception of the aggravating circumstances. Thus, the Committee considers that the allegations under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and it concludes that they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee takes note of the allegations by Mr. S.S.F. and Mr. E.J.S.E. that Murcia Provincial Court tried them twice for fraud in connection with their involvement in the company’s commercial activities and that they had initially been acquitted of the offence in the final judgements of 4 February and 9 September 2004. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that, in those judgements, the Provincial Court examined the criminal liability of Mr. S.S.F. and Mr. E.J.S.E. only in connection with their involvement in the commercial exchanges between the company and the complainants, Hermanga S.A. and Fricuenca S.A., respectively. However, the criminal proceedings that led to the Murcia Provincial Court conviction of 30 June 2008 resulted from complaints brought by the companies Cárnicas Poveda S.A. and Ganadera del Segura S.L. and established the authors’ criminal liability for the continuing offence of fraud in connection with their involvement in the company’s commercial activities in general and in relation to various natural and legal 6 8 See communication No. 1892/2009, J.J.U.B. v. Spain, Views adopted on 29 October 2012. GE.14-20560