CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 established in the Optional Protocol and reiterates the claims made in his initial communication. 5.2 He repeats his allegation that the criminal proceedings against him constituted a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. The remedies mentioned by the State party (para. 4.16) do not provide for a substantive review of a conviction and sentence. A request for review cannot be submitted against this type of Supreme Court judgment. 4 An amparo petition is not an effective avenue of redress because the provisions stipulating that persons with parliamentary immunity must be tried before the Supreme Court, as sole instance, have constitutional rank, and it is not possible to petition a judge for protection of a right that is not recognized in the Constitution itself. Moreover, article 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states only that cassation appeals may be used to challenge “rulings handed down in second-instance proceedings”. Judicial reviews are an extraordinary remedy and, as such, do not provide for decisions to be challenged during the trial but rather only once the trial is over and new evidence is identified, there is a change in case law, or some other new point comes to light that justifies a review of the deliberations but does not constitute a challenge to definitive judgments already handed down. 5.3 The rules governing criminal proceedings brought against high-ranking government officials with parliamentary immunity before the Supreme Court, in sole instance, without any possibility of the conviction and sentence being submitted for review to a higher court, violate article 26 of the Covenant by denying this right to certain government officials. 5.4 The proceedings brought against the author, and in particular the actions of the Attorney General’s Office, were politically motivated. 5.5 The author did not request the recusal of the lead Supreme Court judge on grounds of conflict of interest. However, this does not mean that no such conflict existed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court itself refused the judge’s recusal request. A number of the other Supreme Court judges involved in different stages of the proceedings should also have disclosed a conflict of interest as they were in the same situation as the lead judge. 5.6 The fact that the hearing at which the indictment was read out and the pretrial detention order requested was held in a theatre constituted inhuman and degrading treatment for the author. 5.7 The author claims that his pretrial detention, which lasted for two years, “considerably exceeded the maximum time limits for such detention”. 5.8 The author claims that the evidence that he asked to have considered during the trial but which was not admitted by the Supreme Court was germane, relevant and useful. 5.9 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the author points out that the Supreme Court’s ruling itself states that “no appeal is possible” against the verdict. Therefore, there is no adequate and effective remedy that might allow for his conviction and sentence by the Supreme Court, acting as sole instance, to be reviewed. The other remedies to which the State party refers are not adequate and effective either (para. 5.2). State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 21 October 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication and reiterated that the communication does not meet the admissibility criteria established in the Optional Protocol. In particular, the State party reiterated its arguments regarding the author’s failure to substantiate his allegations. 6.2 The State party reiterates that, in its view, the criminal proceedings instituted against the author before the Supreme Court do not constitute a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. 4 8 The author refers to the Supreme Court judgment handed down in case No. 33054, of 19 January 2011, in which the Court indicated that such judgments are not subject to appeal and that “no challenge is admissible. Even requests for review are inadmissible.” GE.18-22078