CCPR/C/125/D/2684/2015 his conviction or sentence, and declined his application for leave to appeal. On an unspecified date, the author appealed the High Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. However, he retracted his appeal, acknowledging the respondent’s submission on the point of jurisdiction. Later on, he submitted an application to the High Court to recall the High Court’s decision of 17 March 2009. The High Court rejected that application on 14 June 2010. The High Court noted, among other things, that since the complaint concerned events from 2004, it would be of little use to consider it further. Instead, since there were new criminal proceedings against the author in the District Court, it could serve as a fresh opportunity for any concerns regarding the author’s ability to stand trial to be considered anew. 2.10 The author submits, for information, that in 2012 he suffered a brain injury caused by a beating. In 2014, after another beating, he lost an eye and his IQ further reduced to 56. In 2014, he was found unfit to stand trial and placed in secure care for 12 months. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant on two accounts. First, he was arbitrarily detained for 14 days in June 2004 for the purposes of psychiatric assessment, which lasted no more than two hours. Second, his whole sentence to a term of imprisonment was arbitrary because the District Court had not properly assessed his intellectual disability and connected issues. 3.2 The author submits that sentencing him to prison constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of articles 7 and/or 10 (1) of the Covenant, considering his intellectual disability and history of self-harm. 3.3 The author claims that article 14 (1) of the Covenant was violated because he had an unfair trial which did not properly assess his intellectual disability and lack of mens rea. 3.4 He further alleges a violation of article 14 (3) of the Covenant, because, due to his disability, he was not able to adequately communicate with counsel for the purpose of conducting his defence. 3.5 The author further claims a violation of article 14 (3) (a) (d) (f) and (g) of the Covenant, because neither the District Court nor Dr. B-W advised him that he had the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, and the right to silence while detained for a psychiatric assessment, and during the assessment. 3.6 Finally, the author claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of his intellectual disability in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 19 January 2015, the State party submitted its observations, arguing that the communication was inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol because the author’s delay in bringing the communication before the Committee amounted to an abuse of the right of submission. The communication was also inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol because the author had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him in a timely manner. 4.2 The State party submits that although the conviction and sentencing for aggravated robbery addressed in the communication occurred in 2004, the author did not apply for leave to appeal out of time until April 2007. The final judgment of the High Court rejecting his request for leave to appeal was issued on 14 June 2010. The author then submitted his communication to the Committee on 2 June 2015, that is, five years after he had finished pursuing domestic remedies, and provided no explanation for the delay. 4.3 The delay in submitting the present communication is significant, in particular since the conviction and sentence that the author challenges date back to 2004 and involve a challenge to the findings relating to the intellectual capabilities of the author at that time. Such delay is prejudicial to the State party’s ability to respond to the author’s claims in particular, because there may be a substantial amount of evidence that is no longer available due to the effluxion of time. 4