CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 criminal nature. It recalls that the guarantee afforded under this provision of the Covenant applies to criminal offences only, and not to disciplinary measures that do not constitute punishment for a criminal offence within the meaning of article 14 of the Covenant. 7 Accordingly, the Committee considers that these claims have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.9 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations, under article 15 (1) of the Covenant, that he was convicted of acts or omissions that did not constitute criminal offences. The author contends that it was not proven in the course of the criminal proceedings that his conduct conformed to the constituent elements of the offences of which he was charged; that he committed an error of the kind that precluded criminal liability; and that his conduct was not wilfully culpable (para. 3.11). The Committee observes, however, that the author does not argue that the offences of which he was convicted by the Supreme Court (embezzlement by appropriation and contracting without meeting the legal requirements) did not exist at the time of the events. The Committee thus considers that the claims under article 15 (1) of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that they are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.10 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 10 (1), 17 (1), 18, 19 and 26 of the Covenant in the manner in which some of the hearings were organized, in the alleged politically motivated nature of the criminal proceedings and the pretrial detention order issued against him, and in the consequences of the proceedings (paras. 3.2, 3.12, 3.13, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6). The Committee considers that these claims are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.11 The Committee takes note of the author’s general allegations that his rights under articles 11, 14 (6) and 16 of the Covenant were violated by the State party (paras. 3.1, 3.9, 7.4 and 7.5). However, in the light of the information before it, in particular the information provided by the author, the Committee notes that a violation of these rights cannot be inferred from the circumstances of the case and that these complaints are manifestly unfounded. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that these claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.12 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under articles 14 (5) and 25 of the Covenant (paras. 3.8, 5.2 and 7.6). The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation (paras. 4.17, 6.1 and 9.2). The Committee nevertheless considers that the author’s allegations have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore finds that the author’s claims under articles 14 (5) and 25 are admissible and proceeds to examine them on the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that the criminal proceedings against him constituted a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant since there is no mechanism that would have enabled him to appeal his sentence and apply to have the conviction and sentence handed down by the Supreme Court on 17 July 2014 reviewed by a higher tribunal (paras. 3.8 and 6.4). Given that the Constitutional Court had declared several articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure that excluded the possibility of contesting all convictions before a functionally or hierarchically superior authority, and also an amendment to the Constitution, to be unconstitutional, the author lodged two appeals 7 12 General comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 57. GE.18-22078