CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013 cell, the lack of sanitary facilities and the restrictions on activities all constitute violations of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.8 The author also claims that his incommunicado detention, the lack of communication with his family “at regular intervals” and, again, the lack of adequate health care constitute violations of his rights under article 10 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author has not filed a request for a supervisory review of his final convictions. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s assertion that on 23 June 2011 he did file an application for supervisory review in the course of proceedings appealing his conviction on embezzlement and bribery charges with the Supreme Court, and that the application was rejected on 25 July 2011. Accordingly, the Committee finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the communication as it relates to the final conviction of the author on embezzlement and bribery charges. 6.4 The Committee notes that the alleged violations of article 9 (1-5) of the Covenant, relating to the author’s arbitrary arrest, the failure to inform the author of the reason for the arrest and of the charges against him and the failure to bring him promptly before a competent judge, occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party (i.e. before 30 September 2009). The Committee further notes that on 17 October 2009 (i.e. after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol), the author challenged, although unsuccessfully, his detention and his claims falling under article 9 (1) and (3)-(5) at Astana District Court No. 2. Therefore, the Committee is not precluded by the reasons of ratione temporis from considering that part of the claim, although it is precluded from considering the author’s claim falling under article 9 (2) of the Covenant. 6.5 As to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has failed to provide sufficient information and factual support, and, therefore, has failed to substantiate his claims regarding his right to life and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, the author has failed to provide any elements to demonstrate that the State party violated his right to the presumption of innocence. Regarding the author’s allegations concerning violations of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant in relation to the examination of evidence and of witnesses during the trial, the Committee recalls that it is generally for States parties’ courts to evaluate the facts and the evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that 10