CCPR/C/119/D/2842/2016 amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore declares this part of the communication insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.7 Finally, the Committee notes the author’s claim that I. was not present in the appeal court on 26 October 2009. The Committee also notes that I. was represented by the author. Taking into account that the author has not provided any explanation as to why his participation as the legal representative of his son deprived I. of a fair trial, and given the nature of the specific features of the appeal process, the Committee finds the author’s claim that I.’s absence during the appeal hearing amounted to an unfair trial insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) author. 4 That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the