CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 Committee therefore considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated this claim for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.10 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claim under article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, to the effect that the proceedings brought against him, which resulted in his conviction in 2009, did not take into account other earlier proceedings in which the same facts and the same persons had been tried and in which the courts had concluded that the cases should be shelved in application of the Expiry of the Punitive Powe rs of the State Act (Act No. 15848). The Committee notes, however, that in the light of the information contained in the case file, there is nothing to indicate that the author was twice tried for the same facts and the same offence against the 37 persons identified as victims in the trial in Court No. 19. Indeed, even if both proceedings had been shown to involve the same persons and the same facts, the earlier proceedings did not conclude with either an acquittal or a conviction. Consequently the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated this complaint for the purposes of admissibility, and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.11 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims under article 15 of the Covenant that the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to war crimes or crimes against humanity in the State party is regulated by Act No. 18026, which entered into force on 25 September 2006, and that the procedure provided for in that Act was applied retroactively in his case. The Committee notes that Court No. 19 convicted the author of homicide under especially aggravated circumstances and that this conviction was upheld by the higher courts. In this regard, the author has not claimed that he was held guilty of acts or omissions which did not constitute criminal offences at the time they were committed, nor has he claimed that a heavier penalty was imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the offence was committed, or that a law enacted subsequent to the commission of the offence provided for a lighter penalty. The Committee therefore considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility, and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.12 The Committee notes that the author invoked article 26 of the Covenant, and takes note of his allegation that Act No. 15737 and Act No. 15848 were applied differently in that, unlike the Amnesty Act (No. 15737), Act No. 15848 required the Executive to pronounce on whether or not facts under investigation fell within the scope of the Act. The Committee notes that Acts Nos. 15 737 and 15848 are different in nature and scope and that the author did not demonstrate that he suffered discrimination under the law by comparison with other persons in situations similar to his. Consequently, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated these claims for the purposes of admissibility, and finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) GE.15-21845 That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 11/11