CCPR/C/116/D/2399/2014 their own survival, and not to take any legal action that might put them at risk yet again. They were nonetheless subjected to persecution and threats and therefore had to leave the country once more. Finally, having returned to the State party in 2011, and in the light of the statements made by the Government to the effect that it would put forward legislation to protect the victims of the armed conflict, C.L.C.D. had hope of obtaining truth, justice and reparation for the death of her husband and the violations of their rights. However, the law that was ultimately passed did not provide them with that possibility. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 17 February 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It submits that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, that it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission and that it is manifestly unfounded. 4.2 The State party submits that the communication primarily reflects the authors’ dissatisfaction with the judgments issued by the national courts concerning the death of their family member, and that they are asking the Committee to act as an appeal court (of fourth instance) to challenge the judicial proceedings of the military criminal justice system. However, it is not for the Committee to review judicial decisions issued by national courts that have been legitimately constituted and established pursuant to the Constitution, or to assess the facts, evidence and investigation of a case heard by national courts. 4.3 The authors’ communication constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication. While the Optional Protocol does not establish a deadline for submitting a communication to the Committee as regional human rights bodies do, in its jurisprudence the Committee has deemed some communications to be inadmissible on the ground of abuse of the right of submission, owing to the amount of time elapsed between when the facts occurred and when the case was submitted to the Committee. 4.4 In the case at hand, there was no obstacle preventing the authors from submitting a communication to the Committee earlier, at any point during a period of at least two decades. While at some point there might have been exceptional circumstances at play that would have prevented them from approaching the Committee, that was no longer the case as from around 1989, when the authors returned to the State party and took up residence in Bogotá. Even if it was previously not possible to submit the communication, as the authors claim, C.L.C.D. returned to live in the State party in 2011, and yet she did not submit the communication until 8 November 2013. Furthermore, the State party contends that the authors are abusing their right of submission by deliberately providing false or distorted information. For example, they claim that they suffered from a “widespread climate of persecution” that prevented them from remaining in the State party and availing themselves of the necessary legal remedies. This is contradicted, however, by the fact that V.F.C. and A.F.C. were able to complete their education, at both the basic and university levels, under completely normal circumstances, and that C.L.C.D. carried out very conspicuous activities as a founding member of the non-governmental organization Colectivo de Mujeres Excombatientes. If C.L.C.D. had believed that her life was at risk, she would not have led this organization, which is made up of women who previously served as combatants in M19 and other organizations. On the contrary, the Colectivo de Mujeres Excombatientes was given ample room to carry out its activities. Lastly, the peace process entered into with M19 was successful and culminated in the signing of the peace agreement on 9 March 1990. As a result of this agreement and an amnesty granted to former M-19 combatants, the latter were able to fully exercise their rights and even participated as the M-19 Democratic Alliance in the Constituent Assembly that prepared the Constitution adopted in 1991. 4.5 The authors did not exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the matter raised in this communication. Regarding the rules governing criminal proceedings in ordinary courts, GE.16-11906 7