CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 District Court used formalistic grounds for his arrest without examining the real evidence, thus his arrest had no legal grounds and was arbitrary in nature. On article 14 (1) of the Covenant 11.4 With regard to his first psychiatric evaluation, the author notes that, although it was conducted at the pretrial detention facility, the cell he was held in for the evaluation between September 2005 and July 2006 was used for psychiatric evaluations and the treatment of all detainees. During his time in the cell, he was held with another inmate suffering from schizophrenia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 12.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2008, which was rejected on 4 April 2013, since the Court decided that the application did not correspond to the requirements of article 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee observes that the matter is no longer pending before another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Therefore, the Committee is not precluded by virtue of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 12.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has not appealed the decree by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Krasnoyarsk Region to deny reopening the criminal case on the basis of newly discovered evidence (para. 8.2). The Committee also notes the author’s submission that, on 18 September 2015, the Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk City denied his appeal concerning the prosecutor’s decree. The author appealed the decision of the Central District Court and, on 18 February 2016, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court denied his appeal (para. 11.2). In those circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 12.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant were violated because he was convicted despite the lack of any direct evidence tying him to the crimes in question and the existence of an alibi corroborated by two witnesses. According to the author, the trial court did not treat the conclusion of the first psychiatric evaluation as forensic evidence and allow him to introduce certain evidence, while the prosecutor unlawfully influenced the jury resulting in an unfair trial. The Committee notes, however, that the author’s claims basically refer to the evaluation of facts and evidence, and the application of domestic legislation by the courts of the State party. The Committee recalls its case law, according to which it is for the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and the evidence in each case, or the application of domestic legislation, unless the evaluation is manifestly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice.12 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author disagrees with the jury’s assessment and findings, but has not managed to show that the domestic court decisions, which were based on physical evidence, expert opinions and witness testimonies, were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The Committee considers, therefore, that the author has insufficiently substantiated his claim under article 14 (1) for the purposes of admissibility and considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.5 Similarly, with respect to the author’s claim under article 2 (2) and (3) (a), read in conjunction with article 14 (5), of the Covenant, the Committee finds it inadmissible under 12 10 G.C.A.A. v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014), para. 8.8. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 26.