CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 were also critically assessed, and it was concluded that they did not correspond to the reality and had been made in order to avoid criminal liability. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before examining 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. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 7, 9 and 14 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible as unsubstantiated. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s specific contention that the author never complained before the national authorities about the length of the pretrial investigation and the length of the trial. In view of the total length of the proceedings and the explanations by the parties, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (c) is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 With regard to the author’s remaining claims, under articles 7, 9 (1), and 14 (3) (b), (e) and (g) of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s assertion that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.5 The Committee considers that otherwise the author has provided detailed information and has sufficiently substantiated his remaining claims under articles 7, 9 (1), and 14 (3) (b), (e) and (g) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim, under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, that law enforcement officials tortured him while he was in detention between August and November 2012, to force him to testify against himself. The Committee notes that the author provides a detailed account of the different types of torture to which he was subjected, and copies of his and his counsel’s complaints to various authorities concerning those violations. It takes note of the author’s statement before Bekabad City Court that he would be able to identify the torturers. It also notes the author’s brother’s statement before Bekabad City Court that he saw the author, unconscious, in the temporary detention facility. The Committee further notes that the State party refutes these allegations, principally because it denies that the author was detained before 8 August 2012 and contends that he did not complain about the use of torture to the investigator or through his counsel in the subsequent detention period. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that the State party did not deny receipt of the counsel’s complaint to the investigator, dated 13 December 2013, claiming that the author had been forced to confess under torture, which was dismissed the following day on the grounds that incriminating evidence had been obtained through different sources. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the author’s complaints were critically assessed by the trial court but were rejected as “not corresponding to the reality” and “made in order to avoid criminal liability”. The Committee further notes that the material before it shows that no independent inquiry has been conducted by the State party’s authorities and that the counsel’s requests to medically examine the author’s injuries were not previously addressed during the investigation or the trial. 10