CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014 can neither conclude that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was more severe in comparison to the original sentence imposed on the author or that the principles of adversary proceedings or of preclusion of ex officio reformatio in pejus were ignored. The Committee therefore finds this part of the author’s claim insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. 9