CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 problems. Furthermore, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office had provided diplomatic assurances that the complainant would be offered every opportunity to defend himself, including through legal assistance, and that he would not be subjected to torture or any cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. 4.2 The State party also informed the Committee that the extradition of the complainant to the Russian Federation had been postponed in accordance with the Committee’s request for interim protection measures. Additional information by the complainant 5. On 3 March 2014, the complainant informed the Committee that he had filed an appeal against the rejection of his five requests for asylum by the Immigration Police Service. The appeal was lodged on 20 September 2013 with the Court No. 2 of Uralsk. Additional information by the State party 6.1 On 7 March 2014, the State party informed the Committee that, on 26 April 2014, the complainant’s detention would reach one year. Under national law, that is the maximum duration of extradition detention, after which a person must be either extradited or released. Taking into account the Committee’s request for interim protection measures and the subsequent suspension of extradition of the complainant, the State party asked the Committee for guidance on how to proceed. 6.2 The State party notes that no reasons for refusing the extradition were found by the domestic authorities. It reiterates that the Russian Federation provided diplomatic assurances to the effect that the complainant would be prosecuted on the basis of criminal charges listed in the extradition request and that he would not be subjected to torture. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 7.1 On 12 April 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations and additional submission, arguing that the domestic remedies requested by the State party were not effective as not a single case had existed in which the immigration authorities had granted asylum in an extradition case like his own. 7.2 He adds that, on 1 November 2013, the Court No. 2 of Uralsk rejected his appeal against the rejection of his five asylum requests and, on 19 December 2013, the West Kazakhstan Regional Court maintained that decision. He also submitted another request for asylum on 23 December 2013, which was rejected on 13 March 2014 by the Immigration Police Service. The complainant appealed that decision to the Court No. 2 of Uralsk on an unspecified date. 7.3 The complainant reiterates his claims that the criminal charges in the Russian Federation against him were fabricated. He refers to a letter from a lawyer hired by his family to represent him at all stages of investigation in the Russian Federation. According to the lawyer, his request for information addressed to the main investigator in the complainant’s case remained unanswered. This could mean that the complainant’s right to defence would be restricted upon his extradition and, in the absence of his lawyer, he would be coerced to confess guilt under duress. 7.4 The complainant asked the Committee to reiterate its request for interim protection measures, taking into account that the asylum appeals proceedings have no suspensive effect. 5