CCPR/C/113/D/2013/2010 complaints that he was forced to confess his guilt. Counsel therefore contends that the author exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complaint 3. Counsel claims that the author’s rights under articles 6 (1–2), 7, 9 (1–4) and 14 (1, 2 and 3 (a), (b), (d) and (g)) of the Covenant were violated by the State party, because he was subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment after his arrest, and was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. State party’s observations on admissibility and interim measures 4.1 On 6 January 2011, the State party submits that it did not assume any commitment in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The present communication should not have been registered by the Committee in the first place and, therefore, the State party states that it has the honour of returning all the documentation related to the communication. Furthermore, on 22 April 2011, the State party submits that the Committee should not have registered the present communication, which was submitted by third-party individuals who are not even subject to Belarusian jurisdiction.5 4.2 In a note verbale dated 25 January 2012, the State party added that, upon becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, it had agreed, under article 1 thereof, to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State party of any rights protected by the Covenant. It notes, however, that that recognition was undertaken in conjunction with other provisions of the Optional Protocol, including those establishing criteria regarding petitioners and the admissibility of their communications, in particular articles 2 and 5. The State party maintains that, under the Optional Protocol, States parties have no obligation to recognize the Committee’s rules of procedure nor its interpretation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol, which could only be effective when done in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It submits that, in relation to the complaint procedure, States parties should be guided first and foremost by the provisions of the Optional Protocol and that references to the Committee’s long-standing practice, methods of work and case law are not subjects of the Optional Protocol. It also submits that any communication registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol will be viewed by the State party as incompatible with the Optional Protocol and will be rejected without comments on the admissibility or merits, and any decision taken by the Committee on such rejected communications will be considered by its authorities as invalid. The State party considers that the present communication, as well as several other communications before the Committee, were registered in violation of the Optional Protocol. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 19 April 2013, counsel, on behalf of the author, submits that, by ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, the State parties have recognized the Committee’s competence to receive and consider “communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations” of their rights. The rules of procedure of the Committee and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant do not have procedures for the State party to dispute the 5 In its letter, the State party reiterates that it has not taken any obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The State party also emphasizes that treaties such as the Optional Protocol to the Covenant should be interpreted strictly in accordance with articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 5