CCPR/C/132/D/2675/2015 mobile telephone of the victim. While the knife and handbag were found, the mobile telephone was not. 6.7 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that it has complied with its obligations under the Covenant and requests that the communication be dismissed for being without merit. Additional comments from the author 7.1 On 21 December 2016, the author reiterated the main claim that his rights were violated during the investigation and the court proceedings, all the way through to his criminal conviction. 7.2 In his comments, the author objects to the State party’s claim that all available domestic remedies have not been exhausted, arguing that, in accordance with article 414 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court could not be initiated because the requirements were not met. As concerns the possibility of applying to the Prosecutor-General to submit a request for review by the Supreme Court, such an application was made but the Prosecutor-General rejected it. Therefore, the proposed remedies by the State party cannot be considered effective and the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.3 The author reiterates his initial claims and his comments on the State party’s observations. He contests again the forensic medical expertise, the summoning of witnesses, the statements and cross-examination of the witnesses, the claims made by the experts regarding biological, criminological and telecommunications aspects and the findings from the crime scene. As regards the right to a defence, the author reasserts that he did not have access to counsel while he was in administrative (pretrial) detention. He only had access to counsel after he had signed the confession. However, the author does not raise the objections in support of his initial claims that he was beaten during the interrogation and that his confession was extracted by force. 7.4 In conclusion, the author requests that the communication be considered admissible and be examined on the merits. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.5 The Committee notes that the State party has argued that the communication should not be considered admissible for non-exhaustion of available domestic remedies, as the author could have submitted an appellate complaint. In other words, the author could have requested the Supreme Court to review the final criminal sentence on the basis of new evidence, pursuant to article 414 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or he could have requested the Prosecutor-General to seek a review by the Supreme Court. The Committee notes that the author’s criminal conviction was reviewed by the appellate and cassation instances. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that, in accordance with 5 See, e.g., Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2; P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.2; Gilberg v. Germany (CCPR/C/87/D/1403/2005), para. 6.5; Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; and H.S. et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017), para. 6.4. 7