CCPR/C/120/D/2705/2015 not been exhausted regarding his claims under articles 7 and 14 (3) (b), and that his claims under article 14 of the Covenant concern review of the evaluation of facts and evidence by the national courts. 6.4 The Committee notes that there are no fixed time limits for submission of communications under the Optional Protocol and that mere delay in submission does not of itself involve abuse of the right of communication. 1 However, in certain circumstances, the Committee expects a reasonable explanation justifying a delay. 2 In the present case, the communication was submitted to the Committee with a notable delay of nine years after the author’s first supervisory review appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in August 2006 and seven years after his last appeal was rejected by the Office of the Prosecutor General in August 2008. The Committee takes note of the author’s explanation that while in prison he had no knowledge of the individual complaint procedure under the Covenant and no means to submit a complaint to the Committee. The Committee observes, however, that there is nothing in the submission to suggest that the author was limited in contacting the outside world from prison, especially taking into account the complaints to the domestic authorities submitted by him while in prison. The Committee also notes that the author was represented by lawyers retained by his family throughout the judicial proceedings, including while he was in prison. It also notes that the author submitted his communication to the Committee more than three years after his release in 2012. The Committee thus considers that the author has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the delay in submission. In the absence of such explanation, the Committee considers that submitting the communication after such a long lapse of time should be regarded as an abuse of the right of submission, and finds the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 6.5 Having come to that conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine the remainder of the State party’s claims concerning admissibility of the communication. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 1 2 4 That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional That the decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. See communication No. 1445/2006, Polacková and Polacek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 24 July 2007, para. 6.3. See, for example, communications No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2006, para. 4.3.