CCPR/C/121/D/2471/2014 Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, as the contact person in Poland indicated in the correspondence address, are acting on behalf of the author without his consent. The State party declares that the Committee breached its own rules concerning confidentiality by addressing the correspondence between the State party and the Committee to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland without the State party’s consent. 4.2 The State party submits that, in the case in question, domestic remedies have not been exhausted, without specifying further details. 4.3 The State party refers to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, according to which the Committee may, prior to forwarding its Views on the communication to the State party concerned, inform that State of its Views as to whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. The State party claimed that it had not received such Views. In the light of the above, the State party decided to cease correspondence on the present communication with the Committee. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 17 June 2016, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. The author states that he is free to choose whether to submit his complaint to the Committee himself or through a family member, i.e. his wife. He is also free to choose the address of correspondence. The author attaches an authorization for his wife, dated 21 October 2014, requesting her to present his case before the Committee. 5.2 As to the correspondence address in Poland, the author submits that he can choose where to send correspondence addressed to his counsel. In the present case, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland agreed to receive correspondence and transmit it to the counsel to prevent interference by the State party. 5.3 The author points out that the State party does not provide arguments to support its statement that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 5.4 The author further argues that the claim by the State party that it did not receive the Committee’s Views on the granting of interim measures constitutes disagreement with the Committee’s decision to register the communication. The State party’s decision to cease further correspondence in the case in question is in violation of its obligation to cooperate with the Committee in good faith under article 5 of the Optional Protocol. The author concludes his submission by stating that the communication meets all the necessary criteria for admissibility. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 19 December 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party describes the steps taken by the author relating to his asylum proceedings in 2014 and the reasons given for rejecting his application for protection. 6.2 According to the information presented by the State party, the author submitted a second application for asylum to the Department of Citizenship and Migration on 9 July 2015. That application was rejected on 17 May 2016. A subsequent appeal to the Central District Court in Minsk was rejected on 4 July 2016. The author submitted cassation appeals to the Minsk City Court against the two decisions refusing him asylum dated 4 August 2014 and 4 July 2016. His cassation appeals were rejected by Minsk City Court on 27 November 2014 and 15 December 2016, respectively. 6.3 The State party submits that the author has not exercised his right to file a request for supervisory review with the President of Minsk City Court and, should it be rejected, with the President of the Supreme Court and his or her deputies and the Prosecutor General and his or her deputies. The State party informs the Committee that the Supreme Court considered 187 requests for supervisory review filed in 2015 and a further 116 filed in the first six months of 2016. 4