justice and therefore declares both claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. the evidence submitted against the author was sufficient to counter the presumption of his innocence. Consequently, this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and the Committee concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.3 6.5 With regard to the author’s allegation of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), on the grounds that the expert opinion presented at the review stage was rejected, the Committee recalls that the right referred to in the above provision is not absolute, in the sense that it does not allow for the submission of evidence at any time or in any manner, but is intended to guarantee “equality of arms” between the parties during the trial. The Committee takes note of the Supreme Court’s argument that the author did not avail himself of the right to submit the evidence in question in the courts of first and second instance, although the evidence could have been obtained before the trial was held in the Criminal Court. Consequently, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that it is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 With regard to the violation of article 26 alleged by the author, in the sense that he did not enjoy equal treatment before the law, the Committee considers that the author has not shown any allegedly discriminatory treatment on the part of the domestic courts with respect to the aforementioned article. Consequently, the Committee considers that the allegations in question are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and that the part of the communication in question is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; and 6.6 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, the Committee considers that from the judgement of the Madrid Provincial High Court it is clear that that body carefully examined the Criminal Court’s assessment of the evidence. In this respect, the Provincial High Court considered that (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author of the communication and the State party. 3 Cf. communications Nos. 1399/2005, Cuartero Casado v. Spain, para. 4.4, and 1059/2002, Carvallo Villar v. Spain, para. 9.5. 9