CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 admissibility criteria established in the Optional Protocol and the Committee ’s rules of procedure. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 15 January 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated its view that the communication should be declared inadmissible because it presented arguments in a general manner, without linking them to any specific provision of the Covenant or providing even the slightest sub stantiation of the allegations. The State party submits that these arguments merely reflect the author ’s disagreement with the judicial decisions taken in the criminal proceedings against him. 6.2 The State party indicates that the criminal proceedings against the author were not politically motivated and that they were conducted in accordance with ordinary criminal law, notably the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other legislation applicable to the case, as well as the State party’s Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Covenant. 6.3 The author was legitimately sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment, in accordance with the legislation in force and with international standards, and in a manner proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the harm caused. The author always had the possibility of appointing counsel of his choice and, when he so requested, was provided with public defence counsel paid for by the State party. 6.4 During the trial, the author was treated in the same way as any other defendant. All guarantees of due process were respected, including the defence team ’s right to obtain access to effective remedies. However, many of the claims made by the author in his communication, such as the alleged impossibility to submit evidence or the lack of independence or impartiality of the representative of the Attorney -General’s Office, were never raised with the judicial authorities of the State party, for example by submitting an application to declare the proceedings null and void or to disqualify the prosecutor. 6.5 The courts of the State party determined the author ’s criminal liability on the basis of documentary, witness and other evidence provided for in articles 137 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which were presented during the trial. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 By letter of 4 March 2015 the author submitted comments on the merits of the communication and reiterated his previous pleadings. 7.2 The author reiterates that his prosecution was clearly politically motivated and that he was convicted of acts that were committed in Argentina by persons who were not under his command. He claims that he did not take part in Operation Condor; that there is no evidence against him; and that his prosecution was motivated by a spirit of revenge. In 1972 there were two attempts on the author ’s life. However, the assailants mistakenly killed his brother and his personal assistant. 7.3 The author adds that the prosecutor in the trial expressed her opinion about the trial in various media and that no disciplinary action was taken against her. The author maintains that the other judges involved in his prosecution were given important government posts following his indictment. 8/11 GE.15-21845