CCPR/C/114/D/2017/2010 State party’s observations on admissibility and interim measures 4.1 In a note verbale dated 6 January 2011 and 22 April 2011, the State party conveyed, with regard to the present communication and several other communications before the Committee, its concern about unjustified registration of communications submitted by individuals under its jurisdiction who, it considers, have not exhausted all available domestic remedies in the State party, including appealing to the Prosecutor’s Office for supervisory review of a judgement having the force of res judicata, in violation of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The State party claims that registration of communications submitted by a third party, such as advocates, lawyers or other persons, on behalf of an individual claiming violation of his or her rights is an abuse of the Committee’s mandate and of the right to submit communications, and is in violation of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. It submits that, as a party to the Optional Protocol, it recognizes the competence of the Committee under article 1, but it did not consent to the extension of the Committee’s mandate, in particular regarding the Committee’s interpretation of the provisions of the Convention and of the Optional Protocol (preamble and art. 1), and notes that such interpretation should be undertaken strictly in accordance with articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It submits that the present communication and several other communications were registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol; that there are no legal grounds for the State party to consider those communications; and that any decision taken by the Committee on such communications will be considered legally invalid. It further states that any references in that connection to the Committee’s long-standing practice are not legally binding on it. 4.2 In a note verbale dated 25 January 2012, the State party added that, upon becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, it had agreed, under article 1 thereof, to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State party of any rights protected by the Covenant. It notes, however, that this recognition was undertaken in conjunction with other provisions of the Optional Protocol, including those establishing criteria regarding petitioners and the admissibility of their communications, in particular articles 2 and 5. The State party maintains that, under the Optional Protocol, States parties have no obligation to recognize the Committee’s rules of procedure nor its interpretation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol, which could only be effective when done in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It submits that, in relation to the complaint procedure, States parties should be guided first and foremost by the provisions of the Optional Protocol, and that references to the Committee’s long-standing practice, methods of work and case law are not subjects of the Optional Protocol. It also submits that any communication registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol will be viewed by the State party as incompatible with the Optional Protocol and will be rejected without comments on the admissibility or merits, and any decision taken by the Committee on such rejected communications will be considered by its authorities as “invalid”. The State party considers that the present communication as well as several other communications before the Committee were registered in violation of the Optional Protocol. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 1 November 2012 and 19 April 2013, counsel, on behalf of the author, submits that, by ratifying the Optional Protocol, the State parties recognize the Committee’s competence “to receive and consider” “communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations” of their rights. The rules of procedure of the Committee and the Optional Protocol include no procedure for the State party to dispute the registration of the communication. If the State party wants to challenge the admissibility of the communication, it should do so within the existing procedures. According to counsel, by 5