CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011 bodies, jurisdictional or quasi-jurisdictional, work in this fashion and that since the parties have the opportunity to dispute the facts, there is no breach of a State’s right of defence. d 7. The Committee is unable to explain why sometimes it does not apply the law when States parties do not expressly invoke an article of the Covenant and sometimes it does. e To cite merely a few examples from among many, in the following communications the Committee applied the law, irrespective of the legal arguments of the parties: No. 1390/2005, Koreba v. Belarus, Views adopted on 25 October 2010; No. 1225/2003, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2010, paragraph 8.3; No. 1206/2003, R.M. and S.I. v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, paragraphs 6.3 and 9.2 (non-violation); No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010; No. 1320/2004, Pimentel et al. v. Philippines, Views adopted on 19 March 2007, paragraphs 3 and 8.3; No. 1177/2003, Wenga and Shandwe v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, paragraphs 5.5, 6.5 and 9; No. 973/2001, Khalilova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, paragraph 3.7; and No. 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, paragraph 3. 8. It is to be hoped that in the future, the Committee will be consistent and that such consistency will reflect a better application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the facts before it. d e 14 See Benaziza v. Algeria, individual opinion of Fabián Salvioli (partially dissenting), paras. 7 to 15. See communications No. 1917/2009, No. 1918/2009, No. 1925/2009 and No. 1953/2010, Prutina et al. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Views adopted on 28 March 2013, individual opinion of Fabián Salvioli (partially dissenting), paras. 4 to 16. GE.14-24393