CCPR/C/127/D/2920/2016 admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant have been violated because she did not receive a new indictment act when the charges were changed from article 351 (1) to article 351 (2). The Committee also notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant have been violated because she was prevented from presenting her own defence; and that, on two occasions, her counsel was not allowed to take part during the medical examination of the author and to visit the author in the psychiatric facility. The Committee finds that the communication does not contain sufficient factual evidence and legal arguments to support these claims. In the absence of any other pertinent information in that respect, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant have been violated because she was forcefully hospitalized when the fact that she had committed a crime was not proven. The Committee finds that claim incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, since it does not fall within the scope of article 14 (2) and the facts as described by the author raise substantive issues under article 9 of the Covenant. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant have been violated because she was forcibly hospitalized and treated to stop her from enjoying her rights under these provisions. In the absence of any other pertinent information on file in that respect, however, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.10 The Committee takes note of the author’s submission that the State party violated its obligations under articles 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked in a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. 27 However, the author failed to exhibit the direct interrelation between the violation of her rights under articles 7 and 9, and the lack of observation of article 2 of the Covenant. In the absence of any other pertinent information in that respect, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.11 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her remaining claims raising issues under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility, in particular, the author’s involuntary apprehension, committal to a psychiatric hospital and forced medical treatment from 12 January to 22 September 2011, from 12 to 29 December 2011 and from 9 August to 1 November 2013. Accordingly, it declares these claims admissible and proceeds with a consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 27 10 See Castañeda v. Mexico (CCPR/C/108/D/2202/2012), para. 6.8; A.P. v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/105/D/1834/2008), para. 8.5; and Juan Peirano Basso v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/100/D/1887/2009), para. 9.4. See also Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2103/2011), para. 7.4.