CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 Appendix Individual dissenting opinion of Committee member Alessio Bruni 1. It is my opinion that the words “the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention” appearing in paragraph 10.2 of the Committee’s decision should be replaced by the words “the State party raised serious doubts about its willingness to implement article 22 of the Convention in good faith”. 2. Consequently, the last sentence of paragraph 10.3 should be deleted because the State party’s failure concerned its compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure and not the Convention. 3. In addition, paragraph 13 should be reformulated as follows: The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, decides that the facts before it reveal a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the non-compliance by the State party with the Committee��s reiterated requests for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure caused a serious damage to the effectiveness of the Committee’s deliberations and raised a serious doubt about the willingness of the State party to implement article 22 of the Convention in good faith. 4. In the present case, in its information dated 26 April 2014, the State party explained that, under its national law, one year is the maximum duration of extradition detention, after which a person has to be extradited or released. Taking into account the Committee’s request for interim protection measures and subsequent suspension of extradition of the complainant, the State party asked the Committee for guidance on how to proceed. The Committee reiterated the interim measures without providing any guidance (see para. 6.1 of the Committee’s decision). 5. As a consequence, the State party gave priority to the respect of its national law and its obligations under the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (the Minsk Convention) over one of the Committee’s rules of procedure (see para. 9.2 of the Committee’s decision). 6. In these circumstances, the Committee should not have decided that the facts before it reveal a breach by the State party of article 22 of the Convention, but should have blamed the State party for its lack of cooperation with the Committee in the present case, which undermined the Committee’s effectiveness of its mandate under article 22 of the Convention. 11