CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 that the authors have mischaracterized the judicial proceedings and misinformed the Committee about the actual legal costs. 9.7 Regarding the authors’ allegations of violations of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors were not denied legal aid, but were self-represented in some proceedings, and were represented by over ten different lawyers throughout their numerous complaints; moreover, regarding the authors’ presumed allegations of violations of article 14 (3), the State party submits that this section does not apply to the authors, as the present communication deals with civil matters; and overall, the State party submits that the authors’ communication is an attempt to appeal the negative decisions handed down in their domestic proceedings by asking the Committee to be a tribunal of fourth instance. 9.8 The State party also challenges the authors’ allegation concerning potential violations of article 1 of the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, because this provision is not applicable to the authors, because the death penalty has been abolished in Canada since 1976, and, moreover, because there is no reasonable basis for the authors’ claim. From the authors 10. On 19 May 2017, the authors submitted further comments, reiterating their previous arguments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. According to the State party, the non-exhaustion is evidenced by the fact that the authors were pursing domestic remedies while the communication was pending before the Committee, remedies that ultimately led to their obtaining a building permit on 16 December 2013. After that date, the authors continued to challenge the legality of the State party’s decision to make an inspection of the house and enforce compliance with the approved building permit. The Committee also notes the State party’s uncontested argument that the authors have never brought their claims based on articles 6, 7, 17 and 26 of the Covenant before national courts through the appropriate legal remedies. Although many of these allegations have been raised as ancillary claims to the authors’ main cause of action, that is, approval of the building permit for the addition, the Committee notes the availability of several constitutional, fundamental or human rights remedies that could have been triggered for these purposes. 11.4 In light of all the above, the Committee considers that, in failing to raise their claims based on articles 6, 7, 17 and 26 of the Covenant at the national level, the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and declares these claims inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 11.5 With regard to the authors’ claims under article 14 of the Covenant concerning the assessment of evidence by the Ontario Municipal Board and the Board’s alleged lack of independence, the Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.9 In the present case, the 9 See, among other communications, P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; B.L. v. Australia (CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011) para. 7.3; and Z v. Australia (CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011), para 9.3. 13