4.3 The State party points to several inconsistencies in the author's presentation of the facts. For instance, he states that his brother was found in a paddock on 7 February 1988, whereas the medical history of J.O.C. submitted by the author indicates that he was admitted to the hospital of Antioquia on 31 January 1988. Secondly, the State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate any violation of his or his brother's right to life. Finally, it contends that there is no evidence in the material submitted by the author that, either directly or indirectly, would implicate the armed forces of Colombia and thus establish the responsibility of the State party. In the State party's opinion, it remains entirely possible that J.O.C* has been the victim of a common crime. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Sights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has noted the State party's contention that the author has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as well as the author's reply that such remedies would not be effective. 5.3 As to the alleged violations of article 19, the Committee finds that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claim; nor has he adduced any documentary evidence in support of his contention. 5.4 As to the author's other allegations, the Committee notes that judicial investigations into the events complained of are pending. While it is certain that these investigations have encountered a number of difficulties, the Committee observes that these difficulties are attributable primarily to the fact that no direct involvement of the State party's regular armed forces has been, or can at present be, proven. While fully understanding the circumstances which led the author to submit his communication under the Optional Protocol, the Committee cannot conclude on the basis of the information before it that domestic remedies in Colombia would be a priori ineffective and that difficulties in the judicial process would absolve the author from exhausting domestic remedies. 6. The Human Eights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] -336-