CCPR/C/127/D/2920/2016 5.5 The author also claims that she sought the recusal of Judge Bashanov, but that her motion was simply ignored.26 5.6 The author submits that she could not challenge the manner in which the psychiatric expert examination was carried out but only the result of the examination, namely her diagnosis. All her complaints were rejected. 5.7 The author claims that she is an advocate and a human rights defender, which is proved by her complaints. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested that the domestic remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, the Committee finds that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 7 of the Covenant have been violated, based on a number of elements, including that her lawyer was not allowed to visit her on two occasions and she was not permitted to receive parcels during her hospitalization in a psychiatric facility; that she was threatened and pressured by the medical personnel of psychiatric facilities; and her request to have her injuries recorded after her forced apprehension was refused. In the absence of any other pertinent information in respect of these particular allegations, however, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 9 of the Covenant have been violated for a number of reasons, including the impossibility of appealing the decision to replace the travel ban with an arrest; the author’s detention for five months (12 August 2010–12 January 2011) without the sanction of a court; and the author’s forced hospitalization on 8 May 2012 and 2 July 2014. In the absence of corroborating evidence or further explanations, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these particular parts of the claim of a violation of article 9 for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated because she could not appeal against her unlawful arrest; she was arbitrarily denied access to cassation appeal and supervisory review of the unlawful acts of the Deputy Сhief Medical Officer; and she could not appeal the acts of the expert witnesses and her diagnosis of chronic delusional disorder. Furthermore, the Committee notes the author’s claim that her rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant have been violated because in one court hearing the wife of the judge was a witness for the prosecution and the judge did not recuse himself, despite her request; the courts did not take into account the independent experts’ reports; the courts only satisfied the motions of the prosecution; and the court refused to videorecord the trial held in a psychiatric facility. In the light of the information available, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the author has failed to demonstrate that the alleged “lack of access to appeal”, “bias” or “lack of equality of arms” reached the threshold for arbitrariness, or amounted to a denial of justice. In the absence of any other pertinent information in that respect, the Committee considers the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate that claims for purposes of 26 The author refers to the court decision on the author’s arrest of 12 September 2013, in which it was merely stated that the author made several “unsubstantiated claims and challenges”. 9