CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 Appendix [Original: English] Individual (dissenting) opinion of Committee member Alessio Bruni 1. In paragraph 10 of the Committee’s decision on this case, it is stated: “The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it reveal a breach by the State party of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention”. 2. It is my opinion that the following formulation of the decision would have better reflected the facts of the case: The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it reveal a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the Committee wishes to recall that, on 28 February 2013, it requested the State party not to extradite the complainant to Uzbekistan while his communication was under consideration by the Committee, in accordance with rule 114 of its rules of procedure. Nevertheless, the complainant was extradited to Uzbekistan on 13 March 2013. The non-compliance by the State party with the Committee’s request caused a serious damage to the effectiveness of the Committee’s deliberations on the case under consideration and raised a serious doubt about the willingness of the State party to implement article 22 of the Convention in good faith. 3. It is my opinion that, in any case, the Committee should have informed the State party in advance that, if it did not comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures, the Committee could consider such non-compliance as a violation of article 22 of the Convention. A State party cannot be held responsible for a violation of the Convention without being informed of the Committee’s views on the consequences for the State party of its non-compliance with one of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 11