CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016 circumstances, he has not been able to provide a signed authorization or to submit his communication by himself. 5.3 As regards the State party’s argument that the author’s case is currently pending before several special rapporteurs, he recalls that, while it is true that article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol states that a communication is inadmissible when the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the parallel consideration of the same case by certain extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Human Rights Council should not be regarded as investigation or settlement in the sense intended by the Optional Protocol. In this connection, he refers to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture according to which the fact that a case is before various special rapporteurs does not preclude a committee from examining it.10 The author argues that the same jurisprudence is applicable to the Committee insofar as the wording of article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol is very similar to the corresponding provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 5.4 As regards the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the author submits that, under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol, the rule is waived when recourse to the national justice system is unlikely to bring effective relief. In this connection, he argues that the State party’s assertion that “effective means of redress are available” to the author is contradicted by the testimonies of his family, according to which the author is held in 24-hour solitary confinement and subjected to abusive and inhuman treatment (no more than seven hours sleep a night, interspersed with forced sitting and standing throughout the day), while being sentenced to death. The author also alleges that he has been pressured by a medical official who works in the detention system to recant his statements that claim he lost his hearing due to torture. The author’s family adds that they have brought his case before the Ministry of the Interior, the court hearing his case, and the Saudi Human Rights Commission, but that none of these authorities has taken any appropriate action. 5.5 The author reiterates the reference to public reports documenting the complicity of the State party’s judicial system in human rights abuses. In particular, the author considers that the reports reflect “the arbitrary nature of Saudi justice” and the “abusive exercises of legal power by Saudi Arabia’s terrorism tribunal, the Specialized Criminal Court”.11 In such circumstances, there is no reason to consider that meaningful domestic remedies are available to the author, and the exception of article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol therefore applies. The author concludes that the communication should be held admissible. Additional information submitted by the author and interim measures requested by the Committee 6.1 On 25 May 2017, the author informed the Committee that the Specialized Criminal Court in Riyadh had approved the death sentence against the author, based on confessions extracted under torture. 6.2 On 26 May 2017, in view of the information available and pursuant to rule 64 of the its rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party not to carry out the death sentence of the author while his case was under consideration by the Committee. 10 11 See Human Rights Committee, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru (CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993), para. 7.1: “extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the United Nations … whose mandates are to examine and publicly report on … major phenomena of human rights violations [worldwide], do not … constitute a procedure of international investigation or settlement”; and Committee against Torture, Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 5.1. See Christoph Wilcke, “Saudi Arabia needs a more transparent justice system”, Guardian, 26 October 2011, and Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia: abolish terrorism court”, online statement, 27 April 2012. 5