CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 Committee notes the State party’s uncontested arguments that the authors’ expert witness was not able to attend the hearing; and that the authors chose to leave the Board’s hearing, waiving their right to cross-examine the city council expert. The Committee further notes that the authors have failed to justify their allegation that the Board was biased against them. In light of all the above, the Committee concludes that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim based on article 14 (1) of the Covenant and declares it inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 11.6 Having found the authors’ claims based on articles 6, 7, 14, 17 and 26 inadmissible, the Committee is precluded under article 1 of the Optional Protocol from separately examining the authors’ claims based on article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and declares those claims inadmissible pursuant to articles 1 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.10 12. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1, 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) authors. 10 14 That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the See, among other communications, Ch.H.O. v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.4; and X v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/113/D/1961/2010), para. 6.6.