CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 by its own law”). The same idea is found in the European Convention on Extradition (see article 22: “Except where this Convention otherwise provides, the procedure with regard to extradition and provisional arrest shall be governed solely by the law of the requested Party”). The same applies to provisional arrest pending extradition, which is also to be decided according to the law of the requested State (see article 62 (2) of the Minsk Convention, article 9 (3) of the Model Treaty on Extradition and articles 16 (1) and 22 of the European Convention on Extradition). 7. Article 109 (2) and (3) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the extension of the author’s provisional arrest for a period of 6 months (“If it is impossible to complete the preliminary investigation within a term of up to two months and if there are no grounds for changing or for cancelling the measure of restriction, this term may be extended by the judge of the district court … for a term of up to six months”) up to 18 months. Since extradition proceeding were ongoing, there seemed to be no justifiable reason to release the author before its conclusion. 8. Even if we accept that the extradition request was received after the time limit of one month following the author’s detention, the natural consequence of expiration of this delay would be the release of the author (see article 62 of the Minsk Convention) and then, once the extradition request had been received, he would be rearrested (see article 60 of the Minsk Convention and article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure), in line with relevant international instruments (article 9 (5) of the Model Treaty on Extradition and article 16 (5) of the European Convention on Extradition), without any need for a substantive assessment of detention, as required by the Committee (see paragraph 9.9 above). I would therefore have concluded that article 9 of the Covenant was not violated. 11