CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before examining any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee must ascertain, in accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, whether the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that, on 10 July 2014, a singlejudge formation of the European Court of Human Rights found that the author’s complaint, which had been filed against the State party and was concerning the same facts as those addressed in the present communication, was found to be inadmissible. Given that the complaint is no longer being examined by that Court, the Committee considers that there are no obstacles to its consideration of the communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.19 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible because the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, given that he could have requested the cassation review of judgment No. 3 of 17 January 2008 of the Military Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court of Cassation. The Committee also takes note of the author’s claim that no appeal could be filed against the decision of the Military Court of Appeal, as indicated in the decision itself. The Committee further takes note of the author’s argument that article 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Bulgaria limits the scope of the review in cassation and that second-instance judgments that uphold first-instance decisions are not subject to further appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation. The Committee notes that the State party has not explained how a request for cassation review would have been an effective remedy for the allegations raised before the Committee. Consequently, the Committee considers the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to have been met. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, that the State party failed to respect his right to full access to a tribunal and the principle of equality of arms, given that he was not summoned to participate in the proceedings before the Supreme Court that annulled the decision of the Military Court of Appeal, which had granted him compensation. However, the Committee also takes note of the submission of the State party that the author was allowed to exercise his rights as a victim of a crime, taking part in the first-instance and appellate proceedings, both personally and through an attorney authorized by him, including when the case was heard after consideration had resumed. Furthermore, the civil action brought by the author was subject to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, and in the light of the State party’s explanation, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate those allegations for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims of violations of rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), regarding his allegations of abuse by police officers and the State party’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into those allegations or to provide the author with compensation for the harm he suffered. The Committee therefore declares those aspects of the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 19 8 The State party did not submit any reservation to exclude recognition of the competence of the Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.