CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee also notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the Committee is not competent to evaluate facts and evidence already examined by the domestic judicial authorities. The Committee also takes note of the statements by the authors to the effect that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Anzola and Mr. Molina was not subject to a rigorous or exhaustive investigation by the judicial authorities and that the authors were unable to file as civil parties in the criminal proceedings, which amounts to a denial of justice. The Committee considers this question to be closely related to the merits of the alleged violations and therefore decides to consider the merits. 8.5 The State party alleges that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of abuse of the right to submit communications and argues that the authors have purposely submitted misleading information regarding the death of Karol Juliana Anzola Usuga and the alleged statements made by the police to the effect that paramilitary groups had control of the area. In this regard, the authors state that the death of Karol Juliana Anzola Usuga is only described for the purposes of demonstrating the psychosocial trauma suffered by the family members of Mr. Anzola and not to insinuate that there is some kind of connection between her death and the responsibility of the State for the latter ’s disappearance. As to the police statements, the authors maintain that this information illustrates the great difficult ies encountered by Ms. Usuga and Ms. Serna in the search for their missing loved ones. The Committee finds the information in question to contain no misleading elements, as the purpose of providing it has been clearly enunciated by the authors. The Committ ee thus finds that there is no abuse of the right to submit a communication. 8.6 Lastly, the State party alleges that the communication is inadmissible on the ground that it was submitted 16 years after the dismissal order had been issued by the Puerto Triunfo prosecutor’s office, which amounts to an abuse of the right to submit communications. The Committee observes that the present communication was submitted to it on 1 September 2011 and that its new rule 96 (c) is applicable to communications received by the Committee after 1 January 2012. The Committee further observes that the Optional Protocol does not establish time limits within which a communication should be submitted and that the period of time elapsing before such a submission, other than in exceptional circumstances, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication. 21 In the meantime, the Committee applies its jurisprudence which allows for finding an abuse where an exceptionally long period of time has elapsed before the submission of the communication without __________________ 21 12/20 See, for example, communications No. 1223/2003, Tsarjov v. Estonia, Views adopted on 26 October 2007, para. 6.3; No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2006, para. 4.3; and No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3. GE.15-15601