CCPR/C/128/D/2789/2016 never reached his daughter and advocate. Thus, he was not able to effectively exercise his right to defence.7 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 19 September 2016, the State party presented its observations on admissibility and the merits. It contends that the communication is inadmissible because the author’s father failed to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him, notably, he did not file a supervisory review request with the Prosecutor General and the Chair of the Supreme Court. His defence counsel, Mr. Kremko, filed such requests with the Deputy Prosecutor General and the Deputy Chair of the Supreme Court in April 2016 and on 7 July 2016, which were rejected. Pursuant to articles 175 and 175 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the submission of a supervisory review request suspends the execution of the death penalty for the time of the consideration of the request. 4.2 The State party submits that the author’s father also applied for a pardon from the President, and that the application was still pending at the time of the submission of the communication. In accordance with article 175 of the Criminal Code, the execution of the sentence against a person sentenced to death is to be suspended while the request for pardon is examined. 4.3 As to the merits, the State party explains that on 5 January 2016, the Minsk Regional Court found the author’s father guilty and convicted him of violations of articles 139 (2) (6) and (16) and 174 (3) of the Criminal Code. The trial court sentenced him to death by shooting. On 8 April 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Minsk Regional Court and dismissed the cassation appeals filed by the author’s father and by his counsel, Mr. Lapitsky. 4.4 The State party maintains that the guilt of the author’s father was proven and corroborated by the totality of the evidence examined and evaluated by the court. The State party asserts that the court examined in a comprehensive, complete and objective manner the circumstances of the case, which indicated the particular danger that the author’s father constituted for society. Therefore, the death penalty imposed on him was reasonable and fair. The allegations stated in the communication submitted on behalf of the author’s father on the violation of articles 6, 9 and 14 of the Covenant are not based on the materials of the criminal case. The criminal case was considered by a competent, independent and impartial court. No requests for recusal of judges were made by the parties during the trial. The author’s father had legal assistance assigned to him throughout the proceedings. 4.5 As to the alleged violations under article 9 of the Covenant, the State party clarifies that the author’s father had been arrested on suspicion of murder in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was informed about his rights and obligations as a suspect as well as about the possibility to challenge his detention. 4.6 The State party further maintains that the author’s father did not file any complaints about violations of his right to communicate confidentially with his counsels, about unlawful methods of inquiry or about any other violations of his rights. 4.7 The State party invites the Committee to take into account article 6 (2) of the Covenant, which states that in countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, and states that this case is not contrary to the provisions. 4.8 The State party submits that the communication should be found inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, as it should be considered as an abuse of the right of submission. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In a submission dated 20 November 2016, the author notes that authors who bring a complaint before the Committee do not need to exhaust all available domestic remedies, only those that can be considered effective. The author notes that the Committee has long- 7 4 The claim lacks further information on this point.