CCPR/C/114/D/2395/2014 as Act No. 18831, were motivated by political considerations. The Committee recalls its case law, according to which the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, whi ch lay down general obligations for States parties, cannot in and of themselves give rise to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s contentions in this regard are inadmissible under artic le 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5 8.5 As to articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author ’s claims that Acts Nos. 15737 and 15848 were applied differently because Act No. 15848 was not considered a generally applicable amnesty law and required the executive branch to determine whether or not facts under investigation fell within the scope of the Act; and that the failure to repeal Act No. 15737 also results in unequal treatment of persons who may have committed similar offences in the period between 1973 and 1985. The Committee notes that Acts Nos. 15737 and 15848 are different in nature and scope and that the author does not claim discrimination by comparison with women or discrimination under the law by comparison with other perso ns in similar situations. Consequently the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated these claims for the purposes of admissibility, and finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol . 8.6 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims under article 9, namely that his arrest in 2006 was unlawful, arbitrary and motivated by a spirit of revenge, and that Court No. 19 arbitrarily decided not to apply Act No. 15848. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author was deprived of liberty under a warrant issued by a duly authorized judge, in accordance with the law; that he enjoyed all the necessary guarantees and had the opportunity to exercise all the remedies provided for in law; and that he was tried within a reasonable time considering the complexity of the case. The Committee finds that the author has merely made allegations of a general nature and that this claim is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol, and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims under article 15 of the Covenant, to the effect that he was charged by the Public Prosecution Service with the offence of enforced disappearance of persons, criminalized in the State party by Act No. 18026, which entered into force on 25 September 2006. The Committee takes note of the State party’s comments to the effect that the author was convicted only of the offence of homicide under especially aggravated circumstances and that, despite an appeal by the Public Prosecutor, this sentence was upheld by the higher courts, and he was never sentenced for or convicted of the offence of enforced disappearance of persons. Consequently, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated these claims for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claim under article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, to the effect that some of the acts for which he was sentenced in 2009 had, prior to that date, already been adjudicated on the basis of a judicial decision vested with res judicata effect. The Committee notes, however, that the author refers to another criminal trial, relating to a victim not covered by the criminal proceedings referred to in this communication, and that, on the basis of the information contained in the case file, there is nothing to indicate that the author was tried twice for the same offence committed against the 28 persons described as victims in the trial in Court No. __________________ 5 GE.15-13662 See, for example, communication No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views of 19 October 2010, para. 9.4, and communication No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia, Views of 3 April 2002, para. 7.9. 11/13