guilty of the offence with which he had been charged. State party’s observations and author’s comments 4.1 In its observations of 10 September 2002, the State party contests the admissibility and merits of the communication, noting that both the Provincial High Court and the Constitutional Court had examined the author’s allegations and had dismissed them, stating their reasons and motives. The State party adds that the author cannot seek to replace the logical and reasoned assessment of evidence arrived at by the judicial bodies by his own assessment. 2.4 The author applied for special review by the Supreme Court, alleging new evidence in his favour, which he had obtained through a private investigation service he had hired subsequently to the judgements of the courts of first and second instance. The evidence consisted in a witness who could supposedly declare that at the approximate time of the accident the author was expected to take part in a radio programme. On 17 May 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for judicial review considering that the proposed evidence did not reveal new facts or evidence that proved the author’s innocence, and moreover referred to probative material that could have been available before the trial had taken place and the appeal had been lodged. 4.2 The State party also observes that the Supreme Court gave clear reasons for dismissing the application for special review, noting that the appellant did not reveal new facts or evidence which would prove his innocence and which moreover he could have obtained before the trial was held. 5. On 25 March 2003, the author contested the State party’s arguments, reiterating his initial allegations. He points out that his criminal record is not sufficient grounds for justifying the inadmissibility of his communication or as evidence of his responsibility for the offences with which he was charged in the case at hand. 2.5 The author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, alleging a violation of the right to effective judicial remedy and due process. On 4 June 2001, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application, after considering that the sentences challenged contained sufficient grounds for the inadmissibility of the author’s complaints and sufficient evidence against him on which to base the sentence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that there was a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, arguing that the sentence was arbitrary since it was based merely on the identification procedure conducted during the oral proceedings, which contradicted the report based on the identity parade. 6.2 In accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Committee has ascertained that the matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 3.2 The author contends that the sentence was based merely on circumstantial evidence, and that there was not sufficient evidence against him to invalidate the presumption of innocence. The right to presumption of innocence enshrined in article 14, paragraph 2, was therefore allegedly violated. 6.3 The Committee has also ascertained that the author has exhausted all domestic remedies, pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is for the courts of States parties to assess the facts and evidence, unless the assessment is manifestly arbitrary or constitutes a denial of justice.2 The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the courts of the State party amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of 3.3 He further alleges that the Supreme Court did not allow the witness proposed by him to appear during the application for review, which violated article 14, paragraph 3 (e). 3.4 The author adds that there was a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, since the Provincial High Court did not reassess the circumstantial evidence on the basis of which he had been sentenced by the court of first instance. 3.5 Lastly, the author considers that there is a violation of the right to equality before the law under article 26, since he was not offered due process, and the taking of evidence during the oral proceedings was not in keeping with the principles of a fair hearing and adversarial procedure. 2 Cf., inter alia, communications Nos. 811/1998, Mula v. Republic of Guyana, 867/1999, Smartt v. Republic of Guyana, 917/2000, Arutyunyan v. Uzbekistan, 927/2000, Svetik v. Belarus, 1006/2001, Martínez Muñoz v. Spain¸ 1084/2002, Bochaton v. France, 1138/2002, Arenz v. Germany, 1167/2003, Ramil Rayos v. The Philippines and 1399/2005, Cuartero Casado v. Spain. 8