CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 complaints of ill-treatment, the procurator failed to investigate or take any measures to address those complaints. The author submits that the prison administration regularly reviews complaints placed in the public mailbox in the women’s colony. The mailbox is placed in a visible location in the colony, and it is impossible to submit complaints without the administration noticing. Detainees who complained were then “disciplined” and sent to solitary confinement. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her rights under article 2 (3) have been violated as the State party did not provide her with effective means of protection of her Covenant rights. The Committee recalls, however, that article 2 (3) of the Covenant can be invoked by individuals only in conjunction with other articles of the Covenant and cannot, in and of itself, give rise to a claim under the Optional Protocol. 4 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s contentions in this regard are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims that the review of the trial protocol, and consideration by the appeal chamber of the criminal division of the her appeal against the verdict were carried out and dismissed by the Tashkent Regional Court, the same court that rendered the initial verdict, and that requests for review and appeal to the Supreme Court were denied and that the above constituted a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. The Committee, however, finds the above claim inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, for insufficient substantiation. 6.6 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication and considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her remaining claims that raise issues covered under articles 7, 9 (1), (2) and (4), 10 (1) and (2) (a), 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (e), 17 (1), 19 (2), 21, 22 and 26 and article 2 (3) read on conjunction with the above articles of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility. It declares the communication admissible with regard to those provisions of the Covenant and proceeds to its examination on the merits. 4 12 Communications 1998/2010, A.W.K v. New Zealand, decision of inadmissibility of 28 October 2014, para. 9.4; 1992/2010, Sudalenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 7.4.