CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010 State party’s additional observations 6. In a submission dated 23 January 2012, the State party reiterated its position regarding the inadmissibility of the communication. It also submits that the author has not filed a motion before a court to be released from serving his remaining sentence owing to his grave illness, as he is entitled to do under article 175 of the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation. The list of medical conditions that are incompatible with serving a prison sentence is approved by Government Ordinance No. 54 of 6 February 2004, as amended on 30 December 2005. The State party also submits that the new allegations raised by the author were not part of his original complaint and had not been raised before the domestic authorities and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims 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 to the Covenant. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 14 (1), (2), (3) (e) and (g) and (5) of the Covenant have been violated, as the magistrate judge was biased and there were numerous violations of the domestic legislation during his trial, including being deprived of the possibility of questioning witnesses, which could have established his innocence, and as the courts refused to grant a supervisory review of his case. The Committee recalls that generally, it is for the courts of States parties to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. The Committee notes that apart from general statements, there is nothing in the submissions of the author that would support his claim. The Committee therefore considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his allegations. The Committee also notes that the author has alleged a violation of article 15 (2) of the Covenant without providing any further information. Accordingly, the Committee considers the above claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol as insufficiently substantiated. 7.4 In the context of the author’s claim that his medical records had been falsified and that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition while in prison, the Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of these allegations on the grounds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as the author has not applied for early release from prison on health grounds. The Committee notes that in the present case, the author has not submitted any information or documents to demonstrate that he has ever complained at the domestic level about being wrongly diagnosed or about receiving inadequate medical treatment. In the absence of any further information on file, the Committee declares that part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee also notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the author should have resubmitted his request for a supervisory review, which was received by the 5