CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 merely made allegations of a general nature. The Committee therefore finds that this complaint is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol, and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible under that article. 8.7 With reference to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s claims that the judicial authorities were not impartial since his conviction and sentence were based on testimony from biased witnesses; that the burden of proof was reversed; and that he was convicted in the absence of any evidence that might attest to his involvement in the offences attributed to him. In addition, the courts failed to find that the crime of homicide for which he was tried under articles 117 and 119 of the Criminal Code was time-barred, but arbitrarily ruled that the limitation period started to run from 1 March 1985 and that the concept of dangerousness, established in article 123 of the Criminal Code, was applicable to the author ’s case, so as to be able to extend the term of limitation for the offence by one third. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author was given a criminal trial in accordance with all judicial guarantees and by independent and impartial courts; th at some of his allegations, such as the lack of independence and impartiality of the prosecutor in the trial, were never raised by him before national jurisdictions through effective remedies, such as a request for disqualification; and that the courts fou nd him criminally liable after examining and weighing all the evidence attesting to his guilt. 8.8 The Committee notes that at this point in the communication the author ’s claims basically refer to the evaluation of the facts and the evidence, and the appl ication of domestic legislation by the courts of the State party. The Committee recalls its case law, according to which it is for the courts of States parties to evaluate the facts and the evidence in each case, or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 3 The Committee has examined the materials submitted by the author, including the decisions of Court No. 19, the Appeal C ourt and the Supreme Court, dated 21 October 2009, 26 August 2010 and 22 August 2011, and considers that these materials do not show that the proceedings against the author suffered from such defects. The Committee also considers that the decision to take 1 March 1985 as the starting date for calculating the period of limitation was not arbitrary, as it took into account the fact that that was the date when democracy was restored in the State party and that before that date the judicial authorities had not in practice enjoyed full guarantees and freedom to bring criminal proceedings. It also reflected the seriousness of the acts being tried, given that they might constitute serious violations of human rights under the Covenant and other international treatie s. The Committee considers, therefore, that the author has failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his claim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and that the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Opti onal Protocol. 8.9 The Committee takes note of the author ’s claims that he was unable to mount a defence as the evidence used against him was gathered with no regard for due process, no oversight by the defence and no certainty as to its authenticity or pr ovenance. The Committee notes that the author has not explained to the Committee in what way his right to a defence was restricted in the course of the criminal proceedings, and his claims are not supported by any documentation that might lead to the concl usion that his right to a defence was in fact impaired by the State party ’s authorities. The __________________ 3 10/11 See communication No. 1616/2007, Manzano et al. v. Colombia, decision adopted on 19 March 2010, para. 6.4; and communication No. 1622/2007, L.D.L.P. v. Spain, decision adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.3. GE.15-21845