CCPR/C/118/D/2152/2012 Additional submissions by the parties 9. On 9 December 2013 and 23 January 2014, the author challenged the State party’s submission and reiterated some of his factual claims. 10. On 2 April 2014, the State party reiterated its submission on the merits of the communication (see paragraphs 6.1-6.8). 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 claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author had filed a complaint to the European Court for Human Rights in 2010, which was rejected on 21 May 2010, since the Court decided that the application did not correspond to the requirements of articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee observes that the matter is no longer pending before another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the Russian Federation has not entered a reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. Therefore, the Committee is not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 11.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the “reasonable statute of limitations” regarding the author’s allegations has expired, since more than six years have passed since the alleged violations of his rights and more than two years have passed since the courts rejected his complaint in that regard.5 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 an abuse of the right to submit a communication. 6 The Committee further notes that rule 96 (c) of its rules of procedure, which came into force on 1 January 2012 does not regard the two-year delay in the present case to amount to an abuse of the right of submission. 11.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s submission that on days when he was taken to court hearings, he was woken up at 6 a.m., kept for three hours in a transfer cell in the basement and transported to the court in a truck, in which he was obliged to sit on a wooden bench. In the court building, he was kept all day in a cell, which measured 1m x 3m, despite the fact that hearings usually took only a few minutes. He was not provided with any food and only allowed to drink water from the tap when he was taken to the toilet. He was returned to the detention centre after dinner time, so on days when he had court hearing his only meal was breakfast. However, the Committee notes that in the present case the author has not submitted any information or documents to demonstrate that he has ever complained at the domestic level about the alleged inhuman or degrading conditions on days when he was taken to court hearings or the results of such complaints. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any further information on file, the Committee declares that part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 11.5 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of 5 6 See paragraph 6.7 above. See, inter alia, communication No. 1445/2006, Polacková and Polacek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 24 July 2007, para. 6.3. 9