Advance unedited version CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 State party has been a long-standing problem recognized in the latest findings of this and Human Rights Committees. 6.5 The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that Turkey was included in the list of safe countries, and notes that State party’s Decision on Safe Countries of Origin and the Safe Third Countries was annulled after the new Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection had come into force in June 2018. Articles 44 and 45 of the new law require that the determination of whether a particular country of origin or a third country is safe shall be done on a case by case basis. Thus, automatic reliance on the said list fully undermined the State party’s obligation to assess the risk of refoulement with rigorous scrutiny. 6.6 Finally, the complainant notes that his case has also been brought to the attention of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture who sent an urgent letter No. 3/2017 to the Serbian Minister of Foreign Affairs. It appears that the Special Rapporteur has never received a response to the said letter. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure 7.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect the interim measure requested by the Committee, in particular by forcibly removing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 8 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it has learned about the request on 18 December 2017 only, while the decision on extradition was rendered on 15 December 2017. The Committee also notes that the State party’s submission does not indicate when exactly the complainant was extradited to Turkey. At the same time, the Committee notes the complainant’s submission that his extradition took place on 25 December 2017. 7.3 The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to the State party on 11 December 2017, the State party violated its obligations under article 22 of the Convention because it impeded the comprehensive examination by the Committee of a complaint relating to a violation of the Convention, and prevented it from taking a decision which could effectively block the complainant’s extradition to Turkey, should the Committee find a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint. 8 See Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1 - 6.3; Tursunov v. Kazakhstan (CAT/ /C/54/D/538/2013), paras. 7.1 and 7.2.