CCPR/C/133/D/2619/2015 Advance unedited version the view that no further procedural actions regarding the communication should be taken and the communication should be discontinued. Author’s comments to the State party’s observations 5.1 On 25 March 2020, the author submitted her comments to the State party observations. She claimed that third party11 submission of the petition was in accordance with the practice and Rules of Procedure of the Committee, in particular Rule 91 12 which states that a communication submitted on behalf of an individual shall be with their consent “unless the author(s) can justify acting on their behalf without such consent.” The actions of the State party prevented the author from obtaining written authorization from Mr. Statkevich, Mr. Statkevich was not allowed to see his family until six months after his arrest. Once convicted, he was subjected to multiple prison transfers, often to stricter prisons where his communication with the outside world was limited and often revoked for allegedly violating prison rules. Furthermore, prison officials confiscated all of his incoming mail and refused to send his outgoing mail. Ms. Adamovich, as Mr. Statkevich’s wife, was justified in submitting a communication on his behalf. Rule 99(b) of the Rules of Procedure allows that communication submitted on behalf of an alleged victim may be accepted when it appears that the individual in question is unable to submit the communication personally. 13 5.2 In relation to the State party’s claim that nothing was preventing Mr. Statkevich from presenting personally his interests before the Committee after his release, the author stated that Mr. Statkevich had been detained for nearly three years at the time of the communication’s submission and was scheduled for release in December 2017. 14 And even if he was no longer in prison , he has been subjected to detention on at least seven occasions since August 2015. 5.3 The author also claims that the State party had not acted in good faith. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that there are no legal grounds for the consideration of the author’s communication, insofar as it is registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee recalls that article 39 (2) of the Covenant authorizes it to establish its own rules of procedure, which the States parties have agreed to recognize. By adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant (Preamble and article 1). The Committee recalls its practice, as reflected in rule 96 (b) of its rules of procedure, that victims may be represented by a person of their choice, provided that the representative is duly authorized. Implicit in a State’s adherence to the Optional Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications, and after examination to forward its views to the State party and to the individual (article 5 (1) and (4)). It is incompatible with these obligations for a State party to take any action that 11 12 13 14 6 U.S.-based organisation “Freedom Now” and “Hogan Lovells”. Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/3/Rev.11, (January 9, 2019) Rule 91. Ibid, Rule 99. He was released from prison August 22, 2015 after receiving a presidential pardon.