CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 sufficient to establish the alleged lack of impartiality. In addition, the authors never filed a motion for the removal of the judge. The Committee notes, in fact, that the authors have always had the opportunity to appeal the judge’s decisions and have done so successfully at least once with the Court of Cassation’s decision of 21 September 2000. The Committee finds that the authors have not exhausted the available remedies, within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, relating to the allegations concerning the lack of impartiality of judge X and have not sufficiently substantiated their claim in this regard. The Committee therefore considers the claim inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. c. Reasonable time period 10.8 The Committee further considers that even if the proceedings initiated by the authors have been considerably prolonged, extending over a period of 26 years, they cannot be considered to be unreasonably prolonged within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, since the length of the domestic proceedings is mainly the consequence of the series of appeals filed by the authors contesting the two decisions of the judicial authorities ordering the seizure and sale of their house at auction because of their failure to repay the loan obtained for its construction. This delay is therefore not attributable to the State party. 10.9 In this context, the Committee observes that the State party considers that the authors have failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, as they did not invoke, or did so only indirectly, the alleged violations of article 14 (1) of the Covenant before the domestic courts and did not seek specific remedies for the allegedly excessive length of the legal proceedings or the lack of full compensation for lost property. The authors were of the view that any attempt to seek such remedies was bound to fail, not least because article L141-1 of the Code of Judicial Organization, which covers only what are referred to as serious miscarriages of justice, does not, in this case, provide for a useful and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. As the Committee has repeatedly acknowledged, a State party generally cannot be held accountable for the errors or omissions of authors or of an independent legal adviser. The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve authors of communications of the requirement to exhaust them.38 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. d. Violation of article 7 of the Covenant 10.10 Furthermore, the authors believe that the combination of violations that they were subjected to, including the ultimate loss of their home, amounts to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In response, the State party notes that none of these allegations suggests, in itself, that there was any treatment that could be described as inhuman or degrading, as there was no evidence for most of the allegations, and the other alleged violations turned out to be warranted actions. The Committee is of the view that, in this regard, the violations complained of by the authors are largely the result of the outcome of the various legal proceedings in which they were involved. As the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their claim in this regard, the Committee considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. e. Right to enforcement of a court decision 10.11 The authors also claim that articles 2 (3) and 14 (1) and of the Covenant were violated because they were unable to exercise their right, arising from the right to be heard by a judicial authority, to the enforcement of a court decision. 10.12 The Committee notes, however, the State party’s argument that the refusal to register the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 21 September 2000 nullifying the first sale at auction at the Office of the Mortgage Registrar was caused by the failure of counsel for the authors to follow the rules, as their registration application was incomplete. In that case, the contested 38 GE.21-01892 D.G. et al. v. the Philippines (CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015), para. 6.3. 13