lawyers’ presence, both co-accused reaffirmed that they had participated in the crime. under article 2, and article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 4.7 On 3 July 2001, Karimov was given a new lawyer and in his presence, during a reconstruction of the crime at the crime scene, he explained in detail how he had committed the crime. 6.4 Both authors claim that in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the trial did not meet the requirements of fairness and that the court was biased (paras. 2.9 and 2.18 above). The State party has not commented on these allegations. The Committee observes, however, that all of these allegations relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the court. It recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 6 However it falls under the Committee’s competence to assess if the trial was conducted in accordance with article 14 of the Covenant. Nevertheless, in the present case, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims under this provision, and therefore this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.8 The State party affirms, again without providing documentary evidence, that on 9 July 2001, Karimov was again examined by a medical expert, whose conclusions are contained in the case file, and which establish that Karimov’s body did not show any marks of beatings and did not reveal any bodily injury. The cases of Askarov and the Davlatov brothers 5. On 27 July 2004, the State party informed the Committee that after a Presidential Pardon, Askarov’s and the Davlatovs’ death sentences were commuted to long prison terms. Although several requests for submission of observations on the merits of the communication were addressed to the State party (on 10 March 2003, 20 September 2004, 17 November 2005, and 30 November 2006), no further information was received. 6.5 The authors also claim that contrary to the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), the court heard the testimonies of witnesses on the alleged victims’ behalf but simply ignored them. The State party has not made any observation in this relation. The Committee notes however, that the material available to it shows that the Court indeed evaluated the testimonies in question and concluded that they constituted a defence strategy. In addition, these allegations relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the court. The Committee reiterates that it is generally for the courts of the States parties to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In the absence of other pertinent information that would demonstrate that the evaluation of evidence indeed suffered from such deficiencies in the present case, the Committee considers this part of the communication to be inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with Rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The authors claim that the alleged victims’ rights under article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, were violated, as they were arrested unlawfully and detained for a long period of time without being charged. In relation to Karimov, the State party affirms that following the opening of the criminal case in relation to the murder, and in light of the depositions of other co-defendants, he was charged with participation in the murder and a search warrant was issued against him. The State party has not commented on this issue in relation to Nurstov’s brother and cousins. The Committee notes, however, that the material before it does not permit it to establish the exact date of their respective arrests, and it also remains unclear whether these allegations were ever brought up in the court. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is unsubstantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and therefore inadmissible 6.6 The Committee considers that the remaining part of Mr. Karimov’s and Mr. Nursatov’s allegations, raising issues under articles 6; 7 read together with article 14, paragraph 3 (g); article 14, paragraph 2; and article 10, in relation to all four alleged victims, as well as under article 14, paragraph 3 (b) and (d), in relation to Messrs. Karimov and Askarov, are sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible. 6 See, inter alia, communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, Inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 96