CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011 illness” and post-traumatic encephalopathy; that the spouses had “disturbed the work” of the President of the Quarter’s Committee by their numerous complaints; and that the latter had been forced to request a psychological evaluation of the authors in order to safeguard the interest of the remaining inhabitants. Thereafter, the authors tried unsuccessfully to appeal that decision under the appeals and supervisory review proceedings. In addition, the Committee notes that the State party has not contested the authors’ submission that they had exhausted domestic remedies. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that, in the present case, it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining this part of the communication. 6.4 As to the authors’ claim that their treatment upon admission to the hospital and during the period of hospitalization from 10 until 19 October 2006, constitutes a violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant, in the light of the information available on file, the Committee observes that the authors have not raised this claim at the domestic level. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the Communication inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 As concerns the authors’ claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 19 of the Covenant, insofar as they relate to the reasons of their involuntary hospitalization per se on account of the fact that they allegedly disturbed the work of the President of the Quarter’s Committee with their numerous complaints, the Committee observes that these claims are closely linked to the substance of the authors’ claims under article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant, as well as their claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. In these circumstances, for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 6.3 above, the Committee is of the view that in the present case it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining this part of the communication. 6.6 Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that the State party violated their rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 35 (2014), article 9 (3) applies only in connection with criminal charges. In this connection, the Committee considers that, on the basis of the material before it, the authors have not shown sufficient grounds and arguments to support their claim regarding a violation of their rights under this article of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated this claim for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims raising issues under article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant; article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3); article 19 of the Covenant insofar as they relate to the authors’ involuntary hospitalization per se; and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the above claims admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that their arbitrary hospitalization and detention in a psychiatric hospital for nine days violated their rights under article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant and that they were denied access to court, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 7