CCPR/C/117/D/2100/2011 Committee further notes that, under its long-standing jurisprudence, the domestic remedies cannot be unreasonably prolonged.5 In such circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication submitted by the author. 8.4 Further regarding admissibility, the Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant regarding the pain, suffering and anguish resulting from the loss of his son. The tragic nature of the shipwreck and the breadth of the human tragedy being undisputed, the Committee observes that the submissions before it do not contain sufficient information to clarify the exact cause of the shipwreck or to confirm the circumstances of the alleged disappearance or death of the author’s son. Nor does the communication contain sufficient information regarding the details of the alleged abduction and illegal detention of the author’s son and other missing seamen. The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to show both a connection between the shipwreck and his allegations of enforced disappearance and that the State party’s investigation into the incident has been ineffective or otherwise deficient. In these circumstances, Committee declares that part of the communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has failed to provide any facts to support his contention that the provisions of article 14 have been violated. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claims under that article have not been sufficiently substantiated and declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. Therefore, the Committee decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) The present decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party. 5 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 1560/2007, Marcellana and Gumanoy v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1250/2004, Lalith Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, paras. 6.1 and 6.2; and No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 8.3.