CCPR/C/116/D/2078/2011 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author has failed to request the prosecutor’s office to review his case. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition to a prosecutor’s office to initiate supervisory review of court decisions that have taken effect does not constitute a remedy that has to be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.4 Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) from examining this part of the communication. 6.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 (3), the Committee notes that the State party has not specifically refuted the author’s allegations. The Committee considers, however, that the information on file regarding these claims is very limited. For example, the author failed to name any of that witnesses who he claims could have testified in his defence. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that this particular claim has been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 With regard to the author’s claims under article 2 (3) (b) of the Covenant, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, which indicates that the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States parties and that they cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.5 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claims in this regard are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 In the view of the Committee, the author has sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility his claims under articles 7, 10 (1) and (2), 9 (1), 14 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the claims under article 7 of the Covenant that the author was subjected to physical and psychological pressure to force him to confess guilt in the commission of a crime.6 The Committee observes that these allegations have not been 4 5 6 See communications No. 1873/2009, Alekseev v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 25 October 2013, para 8.4; and No. 1985/2010, Koktish v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 7.3. See communications No. 2202/2012, Rodríguez Castañeda v. Mexico, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 6.8; No. 1834/2008, A.P. v. Ukraine, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.5; and No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4. See paragraph 3.3 above. 5