CCPR/C/132/D/2675/2015 notes the State party’s argument that the author’s written confession was not extracted by force, as the information contained therein matched the accounts presented by the author to his cellmates while he was in pretrial detention and as evidenced by the video recording. The Committee recalls that the right to equality before the courts and tribunals encompasses the rights of equal access and of equality of arms,8 and that the Committee’s role is not to serve as a fourth instance. While noting that the fair trial issues remain disputed by both parties, with alleged inconsistencies in interpretation of most of the evidence by the author, and that the information on file mainly pertains to the facts and evidence, which were thoroughly reviewed by the appellate and cassation instances, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for purposes of admissibility. 9 Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 8 9 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 8. See, e.g., E.Z. v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/113/D/2021/2010), para. 7.5. 9