CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013 obligations in a suit at law”, within the meaning of article 14 (1). It concludes that the deportation proceedings of the authors do not fall within the scope of article 14 (1) and are inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 Lastly, regarding the authors’ claims under article 2 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls that the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for State parties that cannot, by themselves and standing alone, give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.28 The Committee thus considers that the authors’ claims to this effect cannot be sustained and that, accordingly, they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the authors, through their counsel. 28 10 See Kaur v. Canada (CCPR/C/94/D/1455/2006), para. 7.6.