CCPR/C/126/D/2302/2013 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4. By notes verbales dated 2 January 2014 and 23 February 2015, 3 the State party confirmed that all three authors had been charged and convicted under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code, and that they had served their sentences in LBK-12 prison. Lack of cooperation from the State party 5. On 15 May, 24 November and 30 October 2014 and on 10 March 2015, the Committee requested the State party to submit its detailed observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes, however, that no such observations have been received to date, aside from the aforementioned confirmation that the authors were indeed charged and convicted for evading military service. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the merits of the authors’ claims. It recalls that, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that have been taken by the State to remedy the situation. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they are sufficiently substantiated.4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 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 notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 As to the alleged violations of article 7 of the Covenant concerning the mistreatment of the authors during their deprivation of liberty, the Committee notes that the authors have not provided sufficient information or evidence of having been personally ill-treated or personally subjected to harsh prison conditions. Nor have they complained to the authorities about these alleged violations. The Committee considers that, even if the State party has not refuted the authors’ allegations, the limited information contained on file and the absence of detailed explanations from the authors or their counsels implies that the authors’ allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee also finds that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims pertaining to whether their detention in and of itself resulted in violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. In the circumstances as presented by the authors, the Committee finds these allegations insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Therefore, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The third author claims that he was charged and convicted twice for the same crime, once in December 2004, and a second time in March 2013, thus violating his rights under article 14 (7) of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that the third author failed to 3 4 4 In its submission of 23 February 2015, the State party submits information about Mr. Nazarov only. It again confirms that this author was convicted and sentenced based on his refusal to serve in the military forces, and in the absence of any lawful basis for refusal to perform such service. The State party also submits that Mr. Nazarov was released on 29 August 2013. Abushaala v. Libya (CCPR/C/107/D/1913/2009), para. 6.1; Aboussedra v. Libya (CCPR/C/100/D/1751/2008), para. 4; Shikhmuradova v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011), para. 4; Amarasinghe v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012), para. 4. GE.19-19105