CCPR/C/112/D/2105/2011 3.2 Mr. S.S.F. and Mr. E.J.S.E. allege that the Murcia Provincial Court ruling of 30 June 2008 violated article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant. The Court had already assessed their criminal liability in relation to the company’s commercial activities and they had been acquitted of fraud in the judgements of 4 February and 9 September 2004. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 14 December 2011, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and asked for the communication to be declared inadmissible under articles 2, 3, and 5 (para. 2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds, respectively, of insufficient substantiation, abstract doubts raised regarding its legal system and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.2 Domestic judicial remedies were not exhausted, as the application for amparo lodged with the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible on the grounds that it was irremediably flawed owing to a lack of procedural expertise on the part of the authors, insofar as they failed to account in their petition for the special constitutional significance of the application. Moreover, the authors did not make the allegations regarding article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant before the domestic courts, either in their cassation appeal or in their application for amparo. Indeed, in their submission, the authors themselves admit that these allegations had not been a feature of their application for amparo before the Constitutional Court. 4.3 The allegations regarding article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7, of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated. With regard to the allegations under article 14, paragraph 5, the State party maintains that, in response to the authors’ appeal in cassation, the Supreme Court reviewed the facts, the evidence and the application of the law in relation to the proceedings conducted at first instance by Murcia Provincial Court. The mere fact that the authors are dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Covenant. Moreover, the authors’ complaints in relation to article 14, paragraph 5, are general in scope and do not specify exactly which arguments in their cassation appeal were not considered by the Supreme Court. It adds that, in the past, the Committee has declared communications relating to violations of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient substantiation. 2 Lastly, it states that the procedure for appeals in cassation has, in practice, been adapted to comply with the obligations laid down in the Covenant. 4.4 The Provincial Court judgement of 30 June 2008 did not violate the rights of Mr. S.S.F. and Mr. E.J.S.E. under article 14, paragraph 7, since there was no res judicata as regards the facts or purpose of the criminal proceedings at which the judgement was passed. The criminal proceedings that led to the judgements of 4 February and 9 September 2004 examined the possible commission of fraud only in relation to individual contracts. The purpose of these trials was therefore to consider only concrete facts concerning specific relationships with certain suppliers. On the other hand, the trial that led to the Provincial Court judgement of 2008 examined the possible existence of a continuing offence in relation to the authors’ involvement in the company’s commercial activities. The State party points out that, in its judgement of 2008, the Supreme Court itself determined that it could not pass judgement on matters that had already been adjudicated, stating that: “It is clear that the facts that gave rise to the earlier acquittals can no longer be adjudicated, nor 2 GE.14-20560 The State party refers to the Committee’s case law in communications Nos. 1305/2004, Villamón Ventura v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 31 October 2006; 1489/2006, Rodríguez Rodríguez v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 30 October 2008; 1490/2006, Pindado Martínez v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 30 October 2008; and 1617/2007, L.G.M. v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 26 July 2011. 5