CCPR/C/123/D/2249/2013 Author’s further observations on the merits 10. In letters dated 17 November 2014, 2 February 2015 and 28 July 2015, the author reiterated his previous claims of ill-treatment by the police, and of coerced confession. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that a similar complaint submitted by the author was declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights on 23 February 2011 (application No. 36562/10), since it had been submitted after the expiry of a six-month period from the date on which the final decision was taken by the national authorities. However, article 5 (2) (a) does not preclude the Committee from examining the present communication, as the issue is no longer being examined by the European Court of Human Rights. 11.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as he failed to appeal against the 25 December 2009 decision of Pavlovskiy City Court regarding the unlawful actions of his lawyer, and against the decision by the Sosnovskiy district prosecutor’s office to deny his appeal for a supervisory review of his sentence. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the decision of 25 December 2009 was annulled on 17 November 2010 as a result of his appeal. With regard to the author’s appeal for a supervisory review, the Committee notes that the author submitted at least four appeals for a supervisory review of his sentence between 2008 and 2013, including to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that a request for supervisory review to the chairperson of a court, directed against court decisions that have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power of a judge, constitutes an extraordinary remedy, and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.11 In such circumstances, the Committee considers that, in the present case, it is not precluded, for the purposes of admissibility, by article 5 (2) (b), from examining the communication. 11.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party violated article 2 (3) of the Covenant due to the failure to provide him with an effective remedy in response to his complaints. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, which indicates that the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant lay down general obligations for States parties and cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. 12 The Committee thus considers that the author’s claims under article 2 of the Covenant are inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 11.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim, under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, that he was subjected to beatings by the police after his detention on 3 May 2007 and was forced to confess to a crime that he had not committed. The Committee observes that there are no reports of injuries to the author that would be indicative of beatings or of other forms of ill-treatment or torture, and neither do the documents before the Committee show that the author made any claims about any ill-treatment to his own lawyer, or to the courts during his trial or his cassation appeal. The Committee also observes that in his cassation appeal, the author again confessed to pushing his mother down the stairs, arguing that he did not have the intent to cause her any injuries, but that rather it was due to him being in a state of anger and intoxication. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s allegations of beatings by the police were reviewed by the Office of the General Prosecutor, Sosnovskiy District Court and Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court, and were found to be unsubstantiated. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that 11 12 6 See Kostenko v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/115/D/2141/2012), para. 6.3. See K.E.R. v. Canada (CCPR/C/120/D/2196/2012), para. 7.8.