Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2361/2014 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4. On 23 July 2014, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility of the author’s complaint. It stated that “the author of the communication has not exhausted all available domestic remedies at the time of submission of the communication”. The State party submits that in this regard, Mr. Postnov complaint shall be considered inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.8 On 7 October 2014, responding to the request to provide comments on merits of the present communication, the State party submits an explanation to “OHCHR as to the fact that article 2 of the Optional Protocol stipulates that all available domestic remedies, and not effective domestic remedies” should be exhausted. The State party requested the OHCHR to “provide the author” of the present communication “with relevant explanation of the provision of the article 2 of the Optional Protocol”.9 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 August 2014, responding to the State party’s observations, the author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies, including cassation and supervisory review procedures. The Committee, in its decisions such as Oleshkevich10 and Shumilin11, has long established that the supervisory review procedure is not an effective remedies, and does not have to be exhausted for the purposes of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 The author also provides the findings of the report prepared by the commission comprised of experts of “Independent Association of Psychiatrists of Russia”, dated 14 April 2014. In this report, the commission examined the author upon his request. The commission diagnosed the author with “paranoid personality disorder” with “tendencies to seek truth”. From the teenage years, the author had a sharp sense of fairness and demanded truth. The author identified shortcomings, and would express them openly. However, the author’s forced hospitalization was not justified, , according to the independent commission. The author was not a danger to himself or others, and did not need any psychiatric treatment. In his relationships with neighbours, for example, the author was “well adapted”. 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 article 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, without providing any specific details as to the potential remedies that the author should have exhausted12. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 6.4 The Committee has noted the author’s claims under articles 2(1), 2(3), 10(1), 15(2), 17(1) and (2), 26 of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these 8 9 10 11 12 4 No further information is provided by the State party. The State party was requested to provide its observations on merits of the communication on 17 September 2014 (in addition to the request that was sent during the initial registration). Further reminders were sent on 3 December 2014, 26 August 2020, and 8 April 2021. No response has been received to date. The author refers to communication 1758/2008, Oleshkevich v. Belarus. The author refers to communication 1814/2008, Shumilin v Belarus. Please see para. 4.1 above. The State party provides no information on the available remedies.