CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 9.1 On 12 June 2018, the State party submitted additional observations and reiterated its position that there was no violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. 9.2 With regard to the author’s claims under article 25 of the Covenant, the State party maintains that the Supreme Court found that the author was criminally responsible for the offences of entering into contracts without meeting the legal requirements and embezzlement by appropriation, and ruled that he should be “barred from holding public office” in accordance with article 122 of the Constitution. The rights to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to be elected may be subject to limitations, provided that such limitation is established by law, objective, reasonable and proportional, as in the present case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before examining any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 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. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because he had several means of challenging the conviction handed down by the Supreme Court on 17 July 2014 (para. 4.16). The Committee also takes note of the author’s allegations that such remedies were not appropriate and effective (para. 5.2). The Committee notes that the Supreme Court decision stated that “no appeal” is possible against the judgment (para 2.12); that the State party has not explained how the remedies referred to in its observations could be effective in the author’s case; and that these remedies do not provide for a substantive review of the conviction and sentence. Since the State party has not raised any objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies in connection with the other specific claims made by the author, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol are met. 10.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission (para. 4.15). The Committee points out, however, that the fact that the State party and the author of the communication disagree on the facts, the application of the law and the relevance of the jurisprudence of the domestic courts and the Committee does not, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right of submission.5 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the communication does not constitute an abuse of the right to submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations, under article 9 of the Covenant, that the State party violated his right to liberty and security. He maintains that the pretrial detention order against him was not justified; that his requests for the order’s revocation were dismissed by Bogotá High Court; and that the duration of his detention exceeded the legally established maximum (paras. 3.3 and 5.7). The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s pretrial detention was ordered by the competent court and lasted for approximately one year and seven months, as permitted by law. The Committee notes that, on 21 July 2001, Bogotá High Court ordered the author’s pretrial detention. According to the State party, this measure was taken at the request of the prosecution because there was a risk of obstruction of justice. However, the order was revoked on 14 June 2013 by the same court, on the grounds that the Attorney General’s Office had completed its evidentiary work and that this risk no longer existed (paras. 4.3, 4.13 and 6.4). As the author has not disproved these arguments, the Committee considers that the claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated 5 10 F.A.H. et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/119/D/2121/2011), para. 8.3. GE.18-22078