CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 6.7 Concerning the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that, since judicial proceedings remain pending, domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The first case, the so-called East-West Highway affair, was adjudicated on the facts by the criminal court on 7 May 2015, but an appeal in cassation is pending. The Committee therefore finds that it is precluded at this stage from considering the claims submitted by the author under article 14 in relation to the East-West Highway affair. 6.8 With regard to the claims made under article 14 in relation to the Algérie Télécom affair, the Committee notes that the author was eventually sentenced by the Court of Appeal to 12 years in prison on 22 October 2015, and that an appeal in cassation has been filed. The Committee therefore finds that it is likewise precluded from considering the claims submitted by the author under article 14 in relation to that case, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 The Committee notes that the allegations made by the author under article 12 of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated. The Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.10 The Committee declares that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, as well as under article 10, and proceeds to consider the communication on its merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 With regard to the merits of the allegations made by the author, the Committee recalls13 that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession. In cases where the author has communicated to the State party allegations that are supported by credible testimony and where further clarification depends entirely on information the State party alone possesses, the Committee may consider the allegations substantiated if the State party fails to refute them by providing evidence and satisfactory explanations. 7.3 The Committee has taken note of the author’s allegations under article 7 of the Covenant and recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it recommends that States parties should make provision to ban incommunicado detention. It notes that the author was held incommunicado for 20 days, during which time he was kept in isolation and deprived of all contact with his family, a doctor or counsel. The 13 12 Communications Nos. 146/1983, Baboeram-Adhin et al. v. Suriname, Views adopted on 4 April 1985, para. 14.2; 139/1983, Conteris v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 17 July 1985, para. 7.2; 202/1986, Graciela Ato del Avellanal v. Peru, Views adopted on 28 October 1988, para. 9.2; 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3; 107/1981, Maria del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 July 1983, para. 11; and 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.4. GE.16-07656