CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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 to the Covenant. 6.2 As required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With regard to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author did not raise his claims of torture during his first hearing before the investigating judge on 7 October 2009 and that he did not appeal the decision by the prosecutor to take no further action on his complaint of 3 November 2011. It further notes that, according to the State party, the author is using the individual communication procedure before the Committee to influence the domestic judicial proceedings against him, which are still pending. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, on account of the state in which he found himself, he was not able to complain of the torture he had suffered or of the conditions in which the first hearing had taken place during the night of 6 to 7 October 2009. The Committee notes that the author did refer to such treatment during the 17 November 2009 hearing before the investigating judge. 6.5 The Committee notes that the author complained of the treatment he had endured not only to the investigating judge on 17 November 2009 but also in a formal written complaint to the Chief Prosecutor, dated 3 November 2011. The Committee notes that the State party indicates only that the public prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the complaint 10 days after it had been lodged could have been appealed, without, however, demonstrating how such an appeal could have been submitted under Algerian law. In the absence of additional information from the State party and taking into account the numerous opportunities the State party authorities had to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the author’s allegations, the Committee considers that it is not precluded, under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, from considering the author���s claims under article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. 6.6 The Committee notes the author’s allegations under article 9 of the Covenant that his arrest and holding, first in incommunicado detention and then in pretrial detention, were arbitrary. The Committee notes that these allegations were raised with the authorities, first with the investigating judge and then the public prosecutor, but also with the Indictments Chamber and finally the courts, apparently without any investigation having been conducted to this day. The Committee further notes that the arrest took place in connection with the East-West Highway case, judgment in which was handed down on 7 May 2015, a judgment that can be appealed only on points of law and that was reached without a prompt and impartial investigation having been carried out into the allegations of arbitrary arrest. The Committee observes that the State party has not refuted these allegations or offered any explanation for the lack of an investigation. The Committee considers that there has been an unreasonable delay, since, seven years after the facts alleged, no investigation has been conducted into the author’s alleged arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention. The Committee considers that it is not precluded, under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, from considering the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3. GE.16-07656 11