CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 9.7 The Committee notes that the author was arrested on 5 November 2011 in the Russian Federation under a search warrant issued against him by Uzbekistan and that his detention pending extradition was ordered by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Presnenskiy district in Moscow on 7 November 2011. The author’s extradition was requested by the Office of the Uzbek Prosecutor General on 9 December 2011. Article 62 (1) of the Minsk Convention regulating extradition matters between the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States provides that a person detained pending extradition must be released if the extradition request is not received within one month following his or her detention. The Committee notes that Uzbekistan has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Minsk Convention which extended this period for up to 40 days following detention. 9.8 Furthermore, according to the material available to it, the Committee notes that the author’s detention was not brought to the attention of a judge until 28 December 2011, when the district prosecutor requested that pending his extradition, the author’s detention be extended by six months, until 5 May 2012. The Committee also notes that on 3 May 2012, the district court extended the author’s detention for a further six months until 5 November 2012 and that the author was extradited to Uzbekistan on 1 October 2012. 9.9 The Committee further notes that in his appeal against the second extension of his detention, the author argued that the authorities provided no grounds that would justify it, such as the substantiation of exceptional complexity of the criminal charges against him or the existence of specific extradition measures to be taken by 5 November 2012; that there was no reference in article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure to any circumstances justifying the continuous detention of a person after receipt of an extradition request in his or her regard and the issuance of the decision to extradite him by the Office of the Prosecutor General; that the extradition request from Uzbekistan was received over one month after the author’s detention, in violation of the requirements of the Minsk Convention and the author’s constitutional rights; and that therefore the author should have been released. The Committee notes that while upholding the decision on a second extension by the district court, the Moscow city court listed the grounds for extension in a summary manner, without providing further substantiation. The Committee observes that neither the domestic courts nor the State party addressed the concrete arguments against the extension of detention raised by the author’s counsel. In the absence of any explanation by the State party, the Committee considers that due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the Russian Federation of the author’s rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. That requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the State party is under an obligation to provide adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 12. Bearing in mind that by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy if a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party. 9