CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010 Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.8 As to the author’s remaining claim concerning the allegedly unjustified refusal to question a particular witness, the Committee notes that the author has not provided any further explanation regarding the relevance of the witness to his case. In particular, the author has not provided any information as to how and what exactly this witness could have affirmed in his defence, as well as how the questioning of that witness in court could have affected the final finding of the court concerning the author’s guilt. In those circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 14 of the Covenant and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. Therefore, the Human Rights Committee decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible, pursuant to articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) The present decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party. 7