CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 and agreeing to prompt conclusion of their trials, both of which can result in significant sentence reductions. 4.10 Article 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, during the indictment hearing, the parties may raise any issues that might constitute an obstacle to the involvement of certain officials. However, in the criminal proceedings against the author, none of the parties indicated that the Attorney General might be in a situation of conflict of interest. Furthermore, the Attorney General delegated her duties to Supreme Court Public Prosecutor No. 10, who represented the Attorney General’s Office during both the pretrial hearing and the trial. 4.11 The author had every opportunity to submit evidence in the criminal proceedings. However, pursuant to article 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the parties and participants may ask the judge to exclude items of evidence deemed unlawful, or to reject them or declare them inadmissible, should, for example, such evidence be purposeless, repetitive, intended to corroborate known facts or for other reasons unnecessary. The author also had the time necessary to prepare his defence. The pretrial hearing consisted of 12 sessions, held between 14 December 2011 and 14 May 2012. During this period, the author requested, and obtained, a stay of proceedings until he received replies to numerous requests for information and documents. The author’s defence team was actively involved in the hearing and thus able to ensure that the rights of all parties and participants were respected. The documents presented in evidence during the trial, most of which were in the public domain, were obtained and submitted in accordance with due process and were subject to challenge. All evidence collected was duly evaluated by the Supreme Court, as is reflected in the extensive and meticulous consideration accorded them in the ruling. 4.12 The author’s requests for copies of the records of meetings of the Council of Ministers and for one of the witnesses to undergo a handwriting test were made during the due process hearing, and the judicial authorities duly considered the reasons for the requests, their pertinence and their expediency. 4.13 The Supreme Court did not at any time order the author’s pretrial detention; as the court before which the due process hearing was held, Bogotá High Court bore exclusive responsibility for such decisions, and for their suspension or revocation. 4.14 The State party contends that the author is seeking to have the Committee act as an appeal court for matters – notably his criminal liability – that have already been duly settled before the Supreme Court, because he disagrees with the outcome of the trial and the sentence handed down against him. The communication should therefore be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.15 The State party considers that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission and is therefore inadmissible under rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. It refers in detail to specific passages and submits that the communication contains false, distorted, incomplete and unclear information, as outlined above (paras. 4.2– 4.13). 4.16 The communication does not meet the admissibility requirement established in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The author had several means of challenging the sentence handed down by the Supreme Court, such as applying for judicial review of executory Supreme Court judgments under article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applying for amparo as provided for in the Constitution or applying for legal proceedings to be declared null and void on the grounds that evidence was unlawful, the judge was not competent and fundamental guarantees were violated under articles 455 to 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.17 The State party refers to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs and maintains that the author’s allegations of a violation of his rights under the Covenant are manifestly unfounded. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 19 April and 16 and 17 July 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He notes that his communication meets the admissibility criteria GE.18-22078 7