CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it 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 author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 26 of the Covenant, but considers that the author has failed to provide any information to demonstrate that the State party violated his right to the equal protection of the law. Regarding the author’s allegations concerning violations of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, in relation to the examination of witnesses during the trial, the Committee recalls that it is generally for States parties’ courts to evaluate the facts and the evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the court failed in its duty to maintain independence and impartiality. 7 In the present case, the Committee considers that the author failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure to call witnesses reached the threshold for arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence, or amounted to a denial of justice. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, therefore, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his remaining claims under article 7, separately and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1), (3) and (4), and 14 (1) and (3) (g) of the Covenant, declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 Firstly, the Committee notes the author’s allegation that on a number of occasions, he suffered torture at the hands of law enforcement officers. The author provides detailed descriptions of the manner in which the torture was inflicted, and the times, and even the names of some of the alleged perpetrators. In addition, the author provides statements of witnesses, including his father and his counsel, as well as a medical certificate, which corroborate the alleged injuries. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the author and his counsel made numerous complaints to the prosecutor’s office, and also complained during the court hearings, about torture. The Committee notes that while the State party reports that it conducted enquiries into some of the numerous complaints made by the author, it has not been shown that those investigations were launched promptly or that they were conducted effectively. The Committee wishes to underline that the first allegations of torture were made by the author on 6 August 2010, immediately after he was granted access to his private lawyer. The Committee considers that in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability to explain the visible signs of mistreatment that were witnessed on a number of occasions, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 7 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; and No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6.