CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 rejecting the right of the Committee to register new communications, the State party violates its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 Regarding the submission of new communications by “third parties”, counsel, on behalf of the author, submits that, at the time of the registration of the communication, Mr. Burdyko was being held on death row in Minsk. Therefore, he hired a legal counsel to represent him, in accordance with the power of attorney submitted with the initial communication to the Committee. The State party’s concern regarding some “third party” is thus baseless. Counsel believes that the present communication is admissible and should be considered by the Committee on its merits. 5.3 Regarding the failure of the State party to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection, counsel considers that it constitutes a flagrant violation of the State party’s obligations under the Optional Protocol. Counsel invites the Committee to recommend amendments in the Belarusian legislation, so that the State party respects the Committee’s requests for interim measures. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s lack of cooperation and failure to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures 6.1 The Committee notes the State party’s objection that there are no legal grounds for consideration of the present communication insofar that the State party has no obligations regarding the recognition of the rules of procedure of the Committee or its interpretation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol, and that it has no obligation to respect the request by the Committee for interim measures. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, under article 39 (2) of the Covenant, it is empowered to establish its own rules of procedure, which States parties have agreed to recognize. The Committee further observes that, by adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in the adherence of a State to the Optional Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith, so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications and, after examination thereof, to forward its Views to the State party and to the individual concerned (art. 5, paras. 1 and 4). It is incompatible with those obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication and in the expression of its Views. 4 6.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that, when submitting the communication on 17 December 2010, the author informed the Committee that he had been sentenced to death and that the sentence could be carried out at any time. On the same date, the Committee transmitted to the State party a request not to carry out the death sentence while the case was under examination by the Committee. On 14 April 2011, the Committee reiterated its request. On 20 July 2011, the Committee received information that the author had been executed, despite its request for interim measures of protection. The Committee observes that it is uncontested that the execution in question took place, despite the fact that 4 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000, para. 5.1; Nos. 1461/2006, 1462/2006, 1476/2006 and 1477/2006, Maksudov et al. v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 16 July 2008, paras. 10.1-10.3; and No. 1906/2009, Yuzepchuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 October 2014, para. 6.2.