CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 State party’s additional observations 6. In a subsequent note verbale dated 25 July 2016, the State party maintained that the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation and, in relation to certain claims, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The State party also submits that, should the Committee examine the merits of the complaint, it should consider the State party’s observations dated 29 March 2016 in respect of both the admissibility and the merits of the author’s claims and establish that there has been no violation of articles 14 (2) and (3) (e) and 17 (1) of the Covenant for the reasons set out therein. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 17 (1) of the Covenant that his right to privacy has been violated as the prosecution disclosed his identity to the media, as a result of which his name and photographs of him were published on the Internet, making it impossible for him to reintegrate into society after having served his prison sentence. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that Lithuanian law provides for two distinct civil remedies against violations of the right to a private life in relation to publications: firstly, a claim for damages in respect of damage caused by the publication of erroneous information humiliating a person’s honour, and, secondly, a claim for damages in respect of damage caused by the disclosure of private information without a person’s consent, irrespective of whether that information was erroneous or not. The State party has also provided examples of cases in order to show that such remedies are indeed available and effective. The Committee observes that the author did not bring his claim before the domestic courts, nor has he advanced any reasons as to why he might have been unable to do so or why such remedies would not have been effective in his case. In such circumstances, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. This complaint must therefore be declared inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 As concerns the author’s claims under articles 7 and 14 (2) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author could have instituted civil proceedings requesting redress for the alleged damage caused under Lithuanian law. The Committee also notes the author’s submission that even if there had been precedents for providing redress for similar violations of rights, such processes would have afforded only a post factum remedy and could not therefore be deemed effective. Although the Committee is mindful of the examples of cases provided by the State party to demonstrate that there is no legal uncertainty as to the effectiveness of such remedies, the Committee notes that the cases cited deal with the issue of compensation for non-pecuniary damages caused by unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the State party makes reference to a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights in 2014 in which the Court found that the confinement of defendants in metal cages in courtrooms breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the State party could not convincingly show that such confinement, which seems to have been a standard practice at the time in Lithuania, would have been considered by the domestic courts as an unlawful action of the State authorities and could have served as a basis for compensation under the law at the time. The Committee therefore considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the author’s claims in relation to articles 7 and 14 (2) of the Covenant. 6