CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011 Samarkand City Court,2 the emergency ambulance doctor Kh. acknowledged that he had been pressured to take the authors to the psychiatric hospital on 10 October 2006. Furthermore, the State party claims that the authors were taken to the psychiatric hospital at the initiative of Sh. and N.; however, the authors submit that, during the proceedings before the Samarkand City Court, N. testified that, on 10 October 2006, he had invited the authors to discuss one of their complaints and that, when they arrived, he was outside his office on the street, and that the authors had voluntarily sat in the ambulance. 3 As to the State party’s argument that the authors’ complaint of 20 October 2006 was examined by the national authorities, the authors note that they are not aware of this examination and that they have never been informed who performed this examination and what were the results. In this regard, they note that, according to the information they received from the Prosecutor’s Office and Department of Internal Affairs of Samarkand Region, no investigation was carried out in relation to their complaints and the authorities had no intention of initiating such an investigation. 5.5 The authors finally reiterate a number of facts, arguing that their rights have been violated, and provide extensive explanations concerning their complaints to different institutions since 2002 and their reasons for submitting them. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.4 In the context of the authors’ claims under article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant, and their claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the authors’ submission that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies and that, after their release from the hospital, they complained about their involuntary hospitalization to a number of national authorities, including to the Prosecutors Office, but all in vain. Furthermore, on an unspecified date, the second author had attempted to file a civil lawsuit against the unlawful actions of N., Sh. and Kh. but, on 27 December 2006, the Samarkand City Court refused to accept the suit, stating that it was not supported by the necessary documents, namely, responses from the above-mentioned authorities. Furthermore, the Committee observes that, during the second set of civil proceedings initiated by the authors, the Samarkand City Court assessed the information and arguments presented by the parties and witnesses. For example, it established that, on 18 May 2006, the authors had been diagnosed by the Psychiatric Health Centre with having, inter alia, “borderline mental deviations against the background of a somatic 2 3 4 6 See para. 2.6 above. See para. 2.7 above. See, for example, communication No. 2097/2011, Timmer v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 6.3.