CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014 also observes that the author and the interpreter confirmed at the beginning of the hearing before the Board on 17 December 2013 that they understood each other. Finally, the State party submits that the two issues mentioned by the author in relation to interpretation appear not to have had any impact on the assessment made by the Board that the author had not substantiated that he risked persecution in case of his return to Egypt that would justify asylum. The State party thereby maintains that there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the assessment made by the Board in its decisions of 17 December 2013 and 10 February 2014 in the author’s case. 6.5 The State party also requests the Committee to review its request for interim measures in the present case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 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. It also notes that it is undisputed that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 1 of the Covenant have been violated. In this regard, the State party submits that the author “has not elaborated in any way on the circumstances on which this part of the communication is based” and that this part of the communication should be rejected as inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. The Committee recalls that it does not have competence under the Optional Protocol to consider claims alleging a violation of the right to selfdetermination protected in article 1 of the Covenant. 12 It reiterates that the Optional Protocol provides a procedure under which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated and recalls that these rights are set out in part III (arts. 6-27) of the Covenant.13 It follows that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.14 7.4 The Committee further notes, regarding the author’s claim under article 2 of the Covenant in relation to the decision on forced return, that the State party submits that the author “has not elaborated in any way on the circumstances on which this part of the communication is based”. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the provisions of article 2 of the Convention lay down general obligations for State parties and they cannot give rise, when invoked separately, to a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol.15 The Committee thus considers that the author’s claims in that regard are 12 13 14 15 10 See, for example communication No. 932/2000, Gillot v. France, Views adopted on 15 July 2002, para. 13.4. See, for example communication No. 167/1984, Bernard Ominayak et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 26 March 1990, para. 32.1. See communication No. 1134/2002, Fongum Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 4.4. See, for example, communications No. 2202/2012, Castaneda v. Mexico, decision adopted on 29 August 2013, para. 6.8; No. 1834/2008, A.P. v. Ukraine, decision adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.5; and No. 1887/2009, Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 19 October 2010, para. 9.4.