CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 Advance unedited version that this part of the communication, raising issues under articles 7 and 9 (1-5) is inadmissible both under articles 2 and 5 (2)(b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claims with regard to alleged violations of article 14(1) in that his trial was “unfair” and held in an “accusatory manner” and that “the judgment of 5 May 2015 was unlawful”. The author further claims that he could not summon witnesses who would corroborate his account of events, in violation of his rights under article 14(3)(e). The author also argues that the courts ignored the unlawfulness of his detention in temporary detention centre from 20 December 2013 to 15 January 2014. The State party replied that a deputy prosecutor of the Amursk region wrote to the head of the Amursk Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, regarding the need not to breach the law and thus taken the necessary measures to remedy the breach of the law within its monitoring functions. The Committee also notes that the State party provided detailed responses and explanations regarding the author’s claims (paras. 4.7-4.13, and 4.17 – 4.25). In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these allegations, for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) author. 10 That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the