CCPR/C/116/D/2084/2011 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his abduction amounts to torture under article 7 of the Covenant and to a violation of his right to liberty and security under article 9. In this regard, the Committee also takes note of the author’s claim that by not conducting a thorough and complete investigation of his abduction the State party violated his right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) (a), read in conjunction with articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the author’s allegations that, despite his descriptions of the abductors, no investigative steps were taken to compile a composite image or carry out a process of photo-identification of Soviet District police officers. The Committee also notes that the documents submitted by the author indicate that the prosecutor’s office undertook several steps to review the author’s claims, including questioning him, along with other potential witnesses, and reviewing a video recording from a shop in the area where the alleged abduction took place and a printout of the author’s phone calls, which could support his alleged abduction. Furthermore, on the basis of the author’s complaint to the Prosecutor General’s office dated 29 December 2009, the decision of the prosecutor’s office of the Soviet District of Minsk was quashed and the case was returned for additional investigation, during which witnesses were questioned again but did not corroborate the author’s allegations. The Committee also notes that the Soviet District court and the Minsk city court both rejected the author’s appeal challenging the decision of the Prosecutor General, on the ground that there was no credible evidence that a crime had been committed, referring to the findings of the prosecutor’s office. In the light of the above, the Committee considers the author’s claims under articles 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, as they are insufficiently substantiated. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the refusal to open a criminal investigation and the subsequent rejection of his claims by the courts are in violation of article 14 (1), of the Covenant. The Committee recalls, however, that article 14 of the Covenant does not provide for the right to see another person criminally prosecuted. 3 Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. 3 See communication No. 213/1986, H.C.M.A. v. Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 1989, para 11.6. 5