CCPR/C/125/D/2333/2014 2.6 The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. He asserts that a further appeal to the courts would be ineffective, since they have already decided twice in the same matter and the investigator has not complied with their decisions. He also claims that, in any event, the domestic procedures to obtain remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that he was detained and beaten for attempting to monitor the ability of citizens to practise their right to freedom of assembly. The inhumane treatment he received was intended to threaten and punish him, and as a result he suffered bruises and a broken nose. He further claims that the burden of proof of cruel treatment cannot rest on the author alone, and that frequently the State party alone has access to information regarding such incidents. 3.2 The author also submits that he provided all the necessary information to enable the authorities to conduct an investigation. The investigators did not comply with court orders, delayed questioning witnesses and disregarded the testimonies of the two friends who were with him when he was detained. The State party therefore violated his rights to an effective remedy, in violation of article 2 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale of 26 March 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication under articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Optional Protocol, without specifying further details. The State party explains that the case was submitted by a lawyer who resided in the Russian Federation and not by the author himself, without any justification for this. 4.2 The State party submits that, in the case in question, domestic remedies have not been exhausted, without specifying further details. 4.3 The State party considers that the author has abused his right of submission. In the light of the above, the State party decided to cease correspondence on the present communication with the Committee. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5. The author notes that the right to register communications belongs to the Committee and not to States parties. He is properly represented by a duly authorized attorney who practises law in the Russian Federation, and this is permitted under the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party claims that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies, but does not indicate which available remedies have not been exhausted. The author considers that he exhausted all effective domestic remedies. Lack of cooperation by the State party 6.1 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the communication was registered by the Committee in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol and submitted by the author in violation of the right of submission and that, accordingly, it would cease correspondence on the present communication with the Committee. 6.2 The Committee observes that by adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in a State’s adherence to the Optional Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications and, after examination thereof, to forward its Views to the State party and the individual (art. 5 (1) and (4)). It is incompatible with these obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the 3