CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they have been properly substantiated.22 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 5.2 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. 5.3 The Committee notes the author’s assertion that all available and effective domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 5.4 The Committee also notes the author’s claim under article 26 of the Covenant that the State party’s authorities discriminated against him on the ground of his political opinion, since the other opposition candidates who took part in the unauthorized peaceful demonstration on 19 December 2010 were found guilty of having committed less serious crimes, while some were not prosecuted (see paragraph 3.9 above). The Committee considers that the author has insufficiently substantiated his claim under article 26 of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated the remaining claims under articles 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 21 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 With regard to the author’s claim that he was subjected to torture, ill-treatment and psychological pressure at the pretrial investigation stage, with the aim of obtaining a confession, the Committee notes that he provided a detailed description of the methods used, such as exploiting his vulnerable state of health, threatening to use brutal measures against his immediate family and humiliating techniques, such as sleep deprivation and daily bodily searches. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that he suffered bodily harm as a result of the disproportionate use of force against him by members of special police units during the security operation in Nezavisimost Square on 19 December 2010 and during his subsequent arrest. The Committee further notes that, despite suffering from multiple injuries, the author was not provided with medical assistance, and his requests for the medical examination of his injuries were rejected. The Committee notes the author’s claim that, during the “blackout period” from 17 November 2011 to 16 January 2012, he was prevented from meeting with his lawyers, and that his access to written correspondence and telephone calls with his lawyers and family members was also restricted. According to the documents available on file, those claims have been presented by the author himself and his lawyers to the relevant State party’s authorities and courts on numerous occasions. In particular, on 12 May 2011, during a hearing before Partizansky District Court of Minsk, 22 10 See, for example, Samathanan v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014), para. 4.2; and Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia (CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997), para. 10.2.