CCPR/C/122/D/3090/2017 CCPR/C/122/D/3091/2017 3.12 Lastly, he claims that the lack of compensation for his unlawful, arbitrary and inappropriate detention contravenes article 9 (5) of the Covenant. The author argues that there is no effective and efficient procedure in France for obtaining compensation for unreasonable or arbitrary detention within the meaning of article 9 of the Covenant. He also considers that the devastation he suffered during the period of arbitrary detention and the lack of redress violate the rights safeguarded under article 7 of the Covenant. Furthermore, the two cases of denial of justice when the request for compensation for arbitrary and unlawful detention was reviewed violate article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 4.1 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. 4.2 The Committee has ascertained, in accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4.3 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 9 (1), (3) and (5) and under article 14 (1) of the Covenant concern the assessment by the courts of the two States parties of the facts and evidence during the proceedings initiated by the author. The Committee notes that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. 9 The Committee notes that the author has failed to demonstrate that such shortcomings existed in the conduct of the proceedings in this case. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 9 (1), (3) and (5) and under article 14 (1) of the Covenant are inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his alleged arbitrary detention and lack of compensation violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, thereby constituting inhuman and degrading treatment. It considers, however, that the author has not adequately substantiated this complaint for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communications are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision will be communicated to the States parties and to the author of the communication. 9 GE.18-10755 The Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. 7