E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 Caretaker says he has not been working there long but the person lives here”; 18 which implies, therefore, that the author purposely refused to receive the notifications of the mortgage enforcement procedure. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility and the merits Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 9 of its provisional rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the case is admissible pursuant to the Optional Protocol. The Committee shall consider a communication unless it fails to meet the admissibility criteria established in the Optional Protocol. 9.2 In the light of all the documentation made available to it by the parties under article 8, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Consequently, the Committee finds that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the communication under article 3, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol. 9.3 Under article 3, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee may not consider alleged violations of the Covenant that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party concerned unless those alleged violations continue after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. In the present case, the Committee notes that some of the facts that gave rise to the violations alleged by the author had taken place before 5 May 2013, the date of entry into force of the Protocol for the State party. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court denying the author’s application for amparo was taken on 16 October 2013. That process was an opportunity for the Constitutional Court to consider the alleged violations of the author’s fundamental rights in relation to the present case, since the subject of the appeal was a consideration not of purely formal points or errors of law but of possible violations of the author ’s fundamental rights in relation to the complaint contained in the present communication, which means that the possibility of a violation of the author’s rights existed at that time. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is competent ratione temporis to consider the present communication. 19 9.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not submitted objections under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, on exhaustion of domestic remedies. Although the State party informed the Committee that the author later submitted a document to the Court pursuant to article 695, paragraph 3, of the Civil Procedure Act, which made it possible to suspend the foreclosure procedure while a potentially unfair clause in the loan agreement was looked at, it never asked the Committee to find the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 9.5 The Committee considers that, if a State party argues for inadmissibility on this ground, it should do so clearly from the outset, saying which remedies should have been exhausted, and showing that they are appropriate and effective, which did not happen in this case. Accordingly, it is the Committee’s understanding that, with regard to the author’s claims, domestic remedies were exhausted with the Constitutional Court decision of 5 May 2013. __________________ 18 19 10/16 State party’s emphasis. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any documentation to support this assertion or expressly contested the aut henticity of the copies of the notifications served by the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service (see note s 3 and 4 above). See Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, communication No. 5/2011, Jungelin v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 October 2014, para. 7.6. GE.15-17368