CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 by author confirm that he had been bruised at his sports training before his arrest and the available medical records note bruises on both shoulders, not the head, where author was allegedly repeatedly beaten (para. 5 above); this seems to run counter to the Committee’s conclusions (paras. 7.3−7.4). 8. According to the Committee’s case law and paragraph 26 of its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, it is generally for the courts of States parties to review the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. From the facts on file, I see no confirmation that the State party failed to exercise due diligence in the present case, having always concluded that the author’s allegations were not substantiated. 9. In the absence of clear signs of physical injury, taking into account the available medical records mentioning only bruises, and indeed statements signed by the author himself explaining how he got them, the State party’s authorities reached what can be seen as a plausible conclusion. 10. In the light of the above, and contrary to the Committee’s findings, I would have concluded that the author’s claims were insufficiently substantiated and so would not have found a violation in the present case. 9