CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author ’s criminal trial was conducted in Court No. 19, that the sentence of that Court was appealed in the Court of Appeal, and that, subsequently, on 22 August 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the author ’s appeal in cassation. The Committee also notes that the State party has not submitted any objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic reme dies. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims under article 2 of the Covenant, to the effect that the criminal proceedings against him, including the way in which the criminal law was applied, and the adoption of new legislation by the State party, such as Act No. 17897, were motivated by political considerations. The Committee recalls its case law, which indicates that the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, which lay down general obligations for States parties, cannot in and of themselves give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. The Committee therefore considers that the author ’s contentions in this regard are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 2 8.5 The Committee observes that the author invoked articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and takes note of his allegations that, even though he is over 86 years old, the authorities refused his request to serve his sentence under house arrest, and that, because of his age, the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment is equivalent, in his case, to life imprisonment. The Committee notes, however, that the courts determined the author’s sentence in accordance with the law and in proportion to the seriousness of the crimes committed and the harm caused; and that Act No. 17897, on bail and parole, allows the court to order house arrest or other precautionary m easures for persons accused or convicted, for health reasons. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the author has not explained to the Committee why he believes that serving his sentence in a prison facility could entail a risk to his life or treatment in violation of the obligations contained in article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers, therefore, 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. 8.6 The Committee also observes that the author invoked article 9 of the Covenant and takes note of his allegations that his detention was illegal and that Court No. 19 arbitrarily decided not to apply Act No. 15848. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that the author was deprived of his liberty under a court order issued by a competent judge, in accordance with the law, and that he benefited from all necessary guarantees and had the opportunity to avail himself of all remedies provided by law. The Committee notes that the author was placed in pretrial detention on 17 December 2007 by order of Court No. 19 and that, in his communication, he has __________________ 2 GE.15-21845 See communication No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4, and communication No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia, Views adopted on 3 April 2002, para. 7.9. 9/11