exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. It does, however, contest the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the facts of the case do not reveal any breach of the author's rights. The State party submits that the author's allegation that article 7 has been violated is completely unfounded, since his submission contains no evidence to support his claim. Nor has he adduced any facts which could substantiate a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant. 4.2 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, the State party observes that the Human Rights Committee is not a further instance of appeal and, therefore, is not competent to pronounce on the proper weighing of evidence or the measurement of sentences. In this connection, the State party objects that the author is submitting his communication to the Committee as an appeal to a fourth instance for a further review of his case. 5. Commenting on the State party's submission, the author, in a letter dated 13 December 1988, reiterates his initial allegations with respect to the lack of incriminating evidence against him. He further argues that, although the Human Rights Committee is not a further instance of appeal with respect to the measurement of sentences, nevertheless it should be deemed competent to pronounce on the proper weighing of the evidentiary material by domestic courts. 6.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The author of the communication claims that there have been breaches of articles 7 and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (g), of the Covenant. 6.3 A thorough examination by the Committee of all the material submitted by the author has not revealed any facts in substantiation of the claim that he is a victim of a violation by the State party of his rights as set forth in article 7. 6.4 The Committee observes that the assessment of evidentiary material is essentially a matter for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned. The Committee further notes that it is not an appellate court and that allegations that a domestic court has committed errors of fact or law do not in themselves raise questions under the Covenant unless it also appears that some of the requirements of article 14 may not have been complied with. J. H.'s complaints relating to the alleged violations of article 14 do not appear to raise such issues. 6.5 The Human Rights Committee considers that the author has failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That the decision be communicated to the author and to the State party. 83