CRPD/C/20/D/23/2014 Lack of reply from the State party on the merits of the communication 6. On 12 May 2015, 27 November 2015, 4 March 2016 and 9 May 2016, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes and regrets that this information has not been received. In the absence of the State party’s comments on the merits, the Committee must give due weight to those of the authors’ allegations that have been properly substantiated.30 B. Committee’s consideration of the admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee and nor has it been or is it being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication should be found inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, the State party noted that the author had not submitted his case to the courts of the United Republic of Tanzania under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The State party also noted that the author could have initiated a private prosecution under domestic criminal law. In this regard, the Committee notes the author’s submission that filing a petition before Tanzanian courts under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, as well as initiating and pursuing private prosecutions against the attackers, did not constitute effective remedies in his case. The Committee also notes that the author submitted that the police were informed of the attack on the day it was perpetrated, namely 14 October 2011, that the next day three members of the author’s family were arrested and consequently arraigned to court as suspects of the attack, that the prosecution was withdrawn under section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Act for lack of evidence, and that since then the author has never been informed of any new additional steps taken by the authorities of the State party to investigate the case and bring the culprits to justice. In this context, the Committee recalls that the effectiveness of a remedy depends on the nature and the particular seriousness of the alleged violation. 31 The Committee observes that under Tanzanian criminal procedure, the magistrate inquiring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person, including the victim. 32 However, in cases of violations of such gravity as those of which the author has been a victim, the primary responsibility to prosecute remains in the hands of the State party’s authorities,33 which have a non-delegable duty and obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish.34 30 31 32 33 34 8 See, inter alia, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 4; El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 4; Yrusta and del Valle Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013), para. 10.1; and X v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014), para. 6. Vicente et al. v. Columbia (CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995), para. 5.2. See sect. 99 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: “Any magistrate inquiring into or trying any case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person, but no person other than a public prosecutor or other officer generally or specially authorized by the President in this behalf shall be entitled to conduct the prosecution without such permission.” See sect. 90 of the Criminal Procedure Act, according to which a director of public prosecutions has the duty (a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court (other than a court martial) in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed; (b) to take over and continue any criminal proceedings that have been instituted or undertaken by any other person or authority; and (c) to discontinue any criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person. Under sect. 59B (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, the director of public prosecutions has the power to institute, prosecute and supervise all criminal prosecutions in the country. See also the National Prosecutions Service Act, 2008. See, for example, Greco v. Argentina, para. 51; and Sequeira Mangas v. Nicaragua.