CCPR/C/116/D/2399/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With regard to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that they did not have access to an effective remedy. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the authors did not exhaust all domestic remedies, since the rules of procedure governing criminal proceedings in the ordinary courts at the time offered them broad scope for participating in the proceedings as civil parties, of which they did not avail themselves; and that, at the same time, the authors did not ask to be included in the Central Registry of Victims, which would have allowed them to access the various forms of humanitarian support, assistance and reparation set out in Act No. 1448 of 2011 within the framework of a transitional justice mechanism. The Committee notes, however, that the State party’s observations describe in general terms the powers granted to civil parties to the prosecution in criminal proceedings of the ordinary courts, without explaining specifically how those rules would have applied to the authors’ participation in the proceedings before Court No. 75, which did not formally open a criminal investigation but merely conducted a preliminary inquiry. Furthermore, despite the time that has elapsed, no criminal investigation has been conducted with a view to shedding light on the circumstances surrounding the death of A.F.D. and punishing those responsible. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which, in cases of serious violations, a judicial remedy is required. 7 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that there is no impediment to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission within the meaning of article 3 of the Optional Protocol because there was nothing to prevent the authors from submitting the communication to the Committee earlier, at least after 1989, and that, even if it was not possible to submit the communication after that date, C.L.C.D. returned to live in the State party in 2011, and yet she did not submit the communication until 8 November 2013. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that, in practice, they were unable to submit a communication to the Committee earlier for security reasons, since even after they took up residence again in the State party in 1989, and throughout the 1990s, the persecution of persons connected with or related to M-19 continued, and many such persons became victims of murder or enforced disappearance. They therefore had reason to fear that any claims they might make against the State party before international bodies could put them at serious risk and, in fact, they were obliged to leave the State party once again and seek refuge in other countries from 2000 to 2003. 6.5 The Committee points out that, although there is no explicit deadline for the submission of communications under the Optional Protocol, in accordance with rule 96 (c) of its rules of procedure, “[a]n abuse of the right of submission is not, in principle, a basis of a decision of inadmissibility ratione temporis on grounds of delay in submission. 7 10 See communication No. 2051/2011, Basnet and Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 29 October 2014, para. 7.4; communication No. 2111/2011, Tripathi v. Nepal, Views adopted on 29 October 2014, para. 6.3; and communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. GE.16-11906