CCPR/C/112/D/2105/2011 do they warrant a criminal sanction, although civil proceedings would not have been precluded. However, any other facts that are similar or could even have been tried jointly on the grounds that they related to a continuing offence, but which were, at that time, excluded, may be adjudicated, […] without prejudice to ne bis in idem.” Authors’ comments on the State party’s submission on admissibility 5.1 The authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication on 13 February 2012. 5.2 The authors maintain that they have exhausted all domestic remedies. They argue that an application for amparo is not a remedy that must be exhausted, since it is extraordinary and is not an effective remedy. In similar cases, 3 the Committee held that it was not precluded from considering communications in which an application for amparo had not been lodged with the Constitutional Court, since this Court had, and still has, settled jurisprudence to the effect that the remedy of cassation complies with the obligations laid down in the Covenant with regard to the right to a second hearing in criminal matters. Moreover, the cassation appeal before the Supreme Court did not refer specifically to the lack of a second hearing, since this claim is not among the possible grounds for lodging an appeal, which are laid down explicitly in the Criminal Procedure Act. 5.3 The authors reiterate their allegations of a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, and point out that the Supreme Court itself stated that it could not review the evaluation of witness evidence brought before the court of first instance. 4 5.4 The Murcia Provincial Court judgement of 30 June 2008 constituted a violation of the rights of Mr. S.S.F. and Mr. E.J.S.E. under article 14, paragraph 7, insofar as the trial entailed prosecuting the same defendants again, for the same offence and the same facts, namely the company’s insolvency, of which they had previously been acquitted by the same court. Under article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act, related offences must be prosecuted in a single trial. Had the State party prosecuted all the offences in the first trial, the authors would have benefited from the court’s assessment of the evidence at that time. To put it another way, the lack of diligence by the State party’s judicial authorities in not merging the trials, so that the authors’ criminal liability in connection with related facts could be evaluated in a single trial, constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 1. 5.5 The authors request that the Committee recommend to the State party that it ensure full reparation in respect of their rights, including: (a) a comprehensive review of the trial that resulted in the conviction; (b) a reversal of the conviction; and (c) payment of compensation commensurate with the material and moral harm suffered, to include the costs of proceedings before domestic courts and the Committee. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 12 April 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication and reiterated its arguments concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 6.2 With regard to article 14, paragraph 5, it maintains that the Supreme Court judgement gave an extensive and comprehensive review of the Provincial Court judgement 3 4 6 The authors refer to the Committee’s case law in relation to communications Nos. 1101/2002, Alba Cabriada v. Spain, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, para. 6.5, and 1325/2004, Conde Conde v. Spain, Views adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 6.3. The authors refer to the Committee’s case law in relation to communications Nos. 1363/2005, Gayoso Martínez v. Spain, Views adopted on 19 October 2009, and 701/1996, Gómez Vásquez v. Spain, Views adopted on 20 July 2000. GE.14-20560