CCPR/C/115/D/2621/2015 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 4.1 The Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional P rotocol, the Committee has ascertained whether the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that, on 7 February 2006, the European Court of Human Rights found that the proceedin gs instituted in the author ’s case had been unduly long and had not met the requirement of “reasonable time”, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, and article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Committee also recalls that, on acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party entered a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of that Protocol specifying that the Committee “shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement ”. 4.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the “same matter” within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), must be understood as relating to the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights. 5 It observes that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 February 2006 concerned a complaint submitted by the same author, was based on the same facts and related to the right to a fair trial on the same grounds as those put forward by the author to substantiate his complaint under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 4.4 The Committee observes that the inadmissibility decision of the European C ourt with regard to part of the author ’s complaint, in which he claimed €15,000 in compensation for material damage, was justified by the lack of any causal link between the violation found and the alleged material damage. The Committee considers that such analysis constitutes an examination of the communication and concludes that the same matter has, for the purpose of the reservation entered by the State party, already been considered by the European Court. Consequently, the Committee is precluded by the State party’s reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 4.5 As for the author’s claim that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant by becoming complicit in the inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected, the Committee observes that the author provides no evidence to substantiate his allegation. The Committee also notes that the State party’s courts ordered Montpellier University Hospital to pay the author €23,000 i n compensation for the inhuman and degrading treatment that he suffered during his hospitalization. Regarding the author ’s request to bring the Grand Orient de France to justice, the Committee notes that the facts were examined by the Paris Court of Major Jurisdiction and the Paris Court of Appeal, both of which found the claims to be inadmissible because they were not sufficiently substantiated. The claims were also rejected by the Court of Cassation, which declared the author ’s appeal in cassation “inadmissible”. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is generally for the courts of States parties to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence was clea rly arbitrary or __________________ 5 GE.15-22254 See communications No. 1793/2008, Marin v. France, inadmissibility decision adopted on 27 July 2010, para. 6.3; and No. 998/2001, Althammer et al. v. Austria, Views adopted on 8 August 2003, para. 8.4. 5/6