Inadmissibility for lack of substantiation and failure to prove domestic remedies were fully pursued, particularly regarding allegations of mistreatment and the legality of the arrest

Facts

J.S., a Dutch national born in 1958, claims his rights were violated during his 2014 arrest for rape and kidnapping, leading to a six-year prison sentence. He argues the arrest was conducted illegally and under degrading conditions, without proper identification by the arresting officers or notification of his rights. Despite raising these issues through the Dutch legal system up to the Supreme Court, his appeals were rejected. His subsequent complaint to the European Court of Human Rights was also declared inadmissible, with the Court stating he hadn’t exhausted all domestic remedies, and finding no manifest violation of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding his arrest and the use of his statements made under duress.

The author complains of moral suffering from violent, degrading and inhumane arrest conditions, alleging that his grievances were ignored and unpunished by domestic courts. He claims his rights under articles 7, 2 (3), 9 (1), 9 (2), and 10 of the Covenant were violated, notably due to excessive force and lack of information at arrest. He seeks investigation, punishment for those responsible, full compensation, his case being reconsidered on the basis of the Committee’s findings and clearing his record related to the incident.

Admissibility

The Committee found that the author did not adequately demonstrate he had raised his main grievances, related to inhumane and degrading treatment during his arrest, in national proceedings, particularly under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The Committee also noted the author’s claims about the legality and conditions of his arrest under article 9 but found them unsubstantiated because the State party argued the arrest was lawful and necessary, a point the author did not effectively contest. Since the author failed to provide specific evidence or arguments to support his claims, the Committee declared the communication inadmissible.