CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 Advance unedited version addition, an incorrect calculation of the time period that the author spent in pre-trial detention does not necessary reveal any accusatory manner within the examination of the author’s criminal case. Thus, the author’s claims under article 14 (1) are not substantiated and shall be declared inadmissible. 4.7 The State party notes that the author also claims unfair trial in light of the use of unlawful methods of investigation against him (acts of violence by the police, with the resulting self-incrimination). The State party emphasises that authors must exhaust the available domestic remedies prior to complaining to the Committee. From the judgment of the Amursk Regional Court dated 5 May 2015, it transpires that the author has admitted his guilt in committing the crime under article 105 of the Criminal Code (CC) (murder). In court, he partially confirmed his deposition given at the preliminary investigation, clarifying that when he started committing these crimes, he first caused bodily injuries to A.M. In addition, he affirmed that he took the axe – the murder weapon - near the entrance and not near the stove. The author also confirmed his initial confession in court. Thus, it transpires from the judgment that at the first instance, the author has not complained whatsoever of unlawful pressure on him during the preliminary investigation, to the contrary, he admitted his guilt in the crime. 4.8 According to the documents on file, the author complained of alleged facts of violence for the first time in his appeal complaint. It should be noted that his claims were contained not in his main appeal but were included in a supplementary appeal. These allegations were given an adequate assessment by the Supreme Court (appeal ruling of 11 August 2015). 4.9 It should also be emphasised that in his cassation appeal dated 28 July 2016, the author invokes no acts of violence by police whatsoever. Thus, the State party considers that the author has not exhausted the available domestic remedies regarding his allegations of unfair trial and regarding the acts of violence allegedly inflicted by the police to coerce his confessions. Accordingly, this part of the communication shall be declared inadmissible. 4.10 Under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee may declare inadmissible a communication which constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. The author initially admitted guilt and confirmed it before the first instance court; he next invoked allegations of police violence in his appellate claim; and then ultimately did not invoke those claims at all at the stage of the cassation appeal. All this shows, in the State party’s opinion, that the author’s case constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, and the communication shall be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.11 Regarding the allegations under article 14 (3)(e), the State party notes that the author claims a violation of articles 14 (1) and (3)(e), as he did not participate in the adjudication of his claim of moral damages based on his unlawful arrest and poor conditions of detention. The State party notes that the guarantees under art 14 (3)(e) apply to those charged under criminal law. In the present case, however, the author tries to apply this provision in the context of an application for moral damages, i.e. in the context of a suit at law within civil proceedings. Thus, the author’s claims under article 14 (3)(e) seem to be incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and shall be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.12 Under article 376 (1) of the Code of Civil Proceedings (CCP), court decisions, which have acquired the force of res judicata, with the exception of decisions of the Supreme Court, can be appealed under the cassation procedure by the parties of a trial or other people whose rights and lawful interest have been affected by the court decision. 4.13 Under article 377 (2)(2) CCP, rulings of Supreme Courts of the republics, krai/region courts, the courts of the cities of federal importance, the courts of autonomous regions, the courts of the autonomous districts, and also appeals against decisions/rulings of district courts as a first instance which have become executory, are subjected to appeal before the presidium of the respective Supreme court of the republics, krai/regional court, court of the city of federal importance, court of autonomous region, or autonomous district, or to the Collegium on civil cases of the Supreme Court. However, as of 12 February 2018, the author has not appealed to the Collegium of civil cases of the Supreme Court with a cassation appeal against the decision of the Tynda District Court of Amur region of 24 May 2016 nor against the appeal ruling of the Amursk Regional Court of 28 April 2017. Thus, the author has failed to 4