CCPR/C/ 91/D/1186/2003 Page 6 Absence of State party cooperation 4. On 2 June 2003, 30 October 2006 and 31 May 2007, the State party was requested to submit information on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received, in spite of a note from the State party dated 11 July 2007 to the effect that such information would be submitted forthwith. It regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that under the Optional Protocol, the State party concerned is required to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that it may have taken. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that these have been properly substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim 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. 5.2 As it is obliged to do pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the author filed a complaint on behalf of her husband and that the State Prosecutor’s order to release her husband was never implemented. In these circumstances, it could not be held against the author if she did not petition the courts again for the release of her husband or for the mistreatment she suffered from herself. In the absence of any pertinent information from the State party, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The author has claimed violations of articles 19, 22 and 27, on account of her husband’s membership in the SCNC. The Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, how her husband’s rights under these provisions were violated by virtue of his detention. The Committee therefore declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee finds the author’s remaining claims of absence of effective remedies under article 2, paragraph 3(a) and (b); of arbitrary deprivation of her husband’s life under article 6; of violations of article 9, paragraphs 1 to 4 in her husband’s case; and of violations of article 7 in the case of her husband and her own case, admissible..