CCPR/C/116/D/2198/2012 number of crimes (fraud, theft, abuse of official authority). The request was not satisfied in part concerning the author’s conviction under article 221, paragraph 1, of the Belarus Criminal Code (organizing production and storing of securities with the aim to sell). The author appealed the decision of the Deputy Prosecutor General, but the appeal was dismissed by the Moscow Regional Court on 6 July 2012. The author appealed it within the cassation proceedings; however, on 24 September 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. The State party notes that neither the author nor his counsel appealed the Supreme Court’s decision within the supervisory review procedure. 4.2 In the light of the above, the State party notes that, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, individuals may submit a complaint concerning violations of their rights guaranteed by the Covenant only after exhausting all available domestic remedies. In this connection, it further notes that, pursuant to article 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code, judgments that have entered into force, as well as other court rulings and decisions, may be reviewed in line with the procedure set out in chapter 48 of the Code. As the plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained in its ruling No.1 of 11 January 2007, “On application of chapter 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to proceedings before the supervisor y instance”, judgments that have entered into force may be appealed within the supervisory review procedure by, inter alia, a suspect, an accused, a convict, a counsel or a third person whose rights have been breached. Pursuant to article 406, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge examines the request for supervisory review and decides either to initiate proceedings within the supervisory review and forward the appeal for examination to a court of supervisory instance or to reject the request. The President of the Supreme Court or his or her deputy may disagree with the judge’s decision to dismiss the request for supervisory review. In that case, she or he revokes the negative decision, decides to initiate proceedings within the supervisory review and forwards the appeal for examination by a court of supervisory instance. Furthermore, pursuant to article 408, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code, a court of a supervisory instance may: (a) reject the supervisory appeal or application, and leave the appealed judicial decision unchanged; (b) revoke the appealed judgment, ruling or decision and all the subsequent judicial decisions, and terminate the proceedings in the respective criminal case; (c) revoke the judgment, ruling or decision and all the subsequent decisions, and forward the criminal case for a new court examination; (d) revoke the judgment of the appeals instance court and forward the criminal case for a new appeals examination; (e) revoke the ruling of the cassation instance court and all the subsequent judicial decisions, and forward the criminal case for new examination within cassation proceedings; and (f) introduce amendments in a judgment, ruling or decision. 4.3 Accordingly, since neither the author nor his counsel appealed to the Supreme Court within the supervisory review procedure, the State party considers that the communication is inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of all available domestic remedies as required by the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claims 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. 5.2 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. 4