CCPR/C/115/D/2621/2015 amounted to a denial of justice. 6 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee is unable to conclude that the authorities of the State party acted arbitrarily in evaluating the facts and evidence of the case and it therefore co nsiders that the claim is not sufficiently substantiated to be admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7 5. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 and article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for information, to the State party. __________________ 6 7 6/6 See Human Rights Committee general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (article 14), para. 26. See also, inter alia, communications No. 1943/2010, H.P.N. v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 March 2013; No. 1500/2006, M.N. et al. v. Tajikistan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 29 October 2012; No. 1210/2003, Damianos v. Cyprus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2005, para. 6.3; No. 1212/2003, Lanzarote et al. v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 6.3; No. 1358/2005, Korneenko v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 1 April 2008, para. 6.3; and No. 1758/2008, Jessop v. New Zealand, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, paras. 7.11-7.12. See communications No. 1771/2008, Gbondo Sama v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 28 July 2009, para. 6.9; and No. 1537/2006, Gerashchenko v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 October 2009, para. 6.4. GE.15-22254