CCPR/C/116/D/2399/2014 However, a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission, when it is submitted after five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication, or, where applicable, after three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay taking into account all the circumstances of the communication.”8 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence according to which a communication is considered to constitute an abuse of the right of submission when an exceptionally long period of time has elapsed, without sufficient justification, between the relevant events in the case or the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the communication. 9 6.6 In the case at hand, the Committee notes that the judicial activity concerning the death of A.F.D. took place between 1986 and 1987 and that, as there were no other effective remedies, the matter could have been submitted to the Committee subsequently — about 30 years ago. The State party claims in general terms that the exceptional circumstances that might have prevented the authors from submitting the communication to the Committee ceased to exist around 1989, when they returned to live in the State party; and that, following the signing of the peace agreement between the Government and M-19, former combatants from that group enjoyed all their rights and even participated in political life through the political party known as the M-19 Democratic Alliance. The Committee notes, however, that the authors have illustrated their claims of persecution with specific cases of M-19 members or persons associated with the group who were reportedly killed or disappeared between 1990 and 2002, including, in 1998, J.E.U.M., who had been their legal representative and the lawyer of their family member; and that the State party has not explicitly contested these claims. Moreover, between 2000 and 2003, the authors again left the State party to reside in other countries, either as refugees or under international protection. That being said, the Committee notes that the authors have not convincingly explained what was preventing them from submitting a communication to the Committee after 2004, even if they were outside the country. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the facts on which the authors’ complaints are based, the Committee is of the view that, in the absence of such explanations, and given that the relevant events in the case took place in 1986, the late submission of the communication has not been sufficiently justified and constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. Thus, the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the authors of the communication. 8 9 GE.16-11906 This rule applies to communications received by the Committee after 1 January 2012. See communication No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, decision of inadmissibility of 27 March 2006, para. 4.3, and communication No. 1849/2008, M.B. v. Czech Republic, decision of inadmissibility of 29 October 2012, para. 7.4. 11