CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 applying the domestic law, decided that the author’s brother should remain in detention until 25 April, since he was accused of a serious crime and could attempt to escape justice. The Committee considers that the author has failed to explain in what manner the initial arrest and subsequent order to remain in detention failed to comply with the domestic law or was otherwise arbitrary under article 9 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that these claims are inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 With respect to the allegation under article 9 (2) that the author’s brother was not promptly informed of the reasons for the arrest and the charges against him in a language that he understands, the Committee notes the State party’s observations that the communication between the police and the author’s brother at the time of detention took place in the Russian language; that he was represented by a privately retained counsel; that his interrogations as a suspect and as an accused were conducted in Russian and in the presence of his counsel; and that he was informed about the charges against him in Russian. In the absence of a more precise rebuttal from the author in this respect, the Committee concludes that the author’s allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 9 (4) and 14 (5) of the Covenant that: (a) from 25 April 2011 until the sentencing of his brother on 7 July, his detention was arbitrary and unlawful as it was based only on the indictment and the transmittal of the case to the first instance court; and (b) that he and his brother were deprived of the right to challenge at the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan the lawfulness of the detention, as the Supreme Court respectively declined to examine the author’s application for supervisory review and examined but rejected his brother’s supervisory review motion. The Committee considers that these claims are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant in relation to the examination of evidence and of witnesses during the trial. It particularly observes the author’s disagreement with the sentence against him, the assessment of material evidence, the fact that the defence was not allowed to cross-examine a key witness, X, who had cooperated with the police in the “sting” operation, the methods and the conclusions of the expert witnesses, the use of the “sting” method and the composition of a three-judge panel of the Osh Regional Court. In this regard, the Committee recalls its case law according to which it is for the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and the 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.14 In the present case, the Committee observes that the material before it does not allow it to conclude that the examination of the evidence and questioning of witnesses by the court was carried out in an arbitrary manner. Nor do the materials contained on file allow the Committee to conclude that the composition of the court was not in accordance with domestic law. The Committee therefore declares these claims insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.9 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his remaining claims, raising issues under article 14 (3) (a) and (f) of the Covenant, and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 14 See, inter alia, communications No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6; and No. 2125/2011, Tyan v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 16 March 2017, para. 8.10. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 26. 9