CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 9.6 The complainant’s counsel claimed that, by extraditing the complainant, the State party had violated the Committee’s request for interim protection measures. 9.7 On 19 February 2015, the State party contested the counsel’s claim about the violation of the Committee’s request for interim protection measures. It stated that the complainant’s detention had been extended by the domestic courts up to the maximum period possible in the light of the Committee’s request, and that the complainant had been extradited when his detention was no longer possible and in compliance with the State party’s international obligations, including under the Minsk Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedures. 10.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect that provision, in particular through such irreparable action as extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 2 10.2 The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to the State party on 28 June 2013, and reiterated on three occasions, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention because it prevented the Committee from fully examining a complaint relating to a violation of the Convention, rendering the action by the Committee futile and its findings without effect. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument, in accordance with its submission of 7 March 2014 and its subsequent submissions, that the maximum period in which it could hold the complainant in extradition detention expired on 26 April 2014 and that, under domestic law, on this date the complainant should either have been released or extradited, and that, if released, he would have posed a threat to the national security. Therefore, a decision was taken to extradite the complainant to the Russian Federation in accordance with the existing mutual assistance treaty. The Committee recalls that the nonrefoulement principle codified in article 3 of the Convention is absolute.3 The Committee refers to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the 2 3 See communication No. 444/2010, Toirjon Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision on admissibility of 15 November 2011, paras. 10.1 and 10.2. See communications No. 444/2010, Toirjon Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision of 1 June 2012, para. 13.7; and No. 39/1996, Paez v. Sweden, decision of 28 April 1996, para. 14.5. 7