CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 individual concerned. 6 It is incompatible with the obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication, and in the expression of its Views. 7 6.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that, when submitting the communication on 27 October 2009, the author informed the Committee that at that point her son was on death row. On 30 October 2009, the Committee transmitted to the State party a request not to carry out his execution while his case was under examination by the Committee. On 7 December 2009, the Committee reiterated its request. On 23 March 2010, the Committee received information that the author’s son had been executed despite the interim measures request. The Committee observes that it is uncontested that the execution in question took place despite the fact that a request for interim measures of protection had been duly addressed to the State party and reiterated. 6.4 Apart from any violation of the Covenant found against a State party in a communication, a State party commits grave breaches of its obligations under the Optional Protocol if it acts to prevent or to frustrate consideration by the Committee of a communication alleging a violation of the Covenant, or to render examination by the Committee moot and the expression of its Views concerning the implementation of the State party’s obligations under the Covenant nugatory and futile. 8 In the present case, the author alleges that her son was denied his rights under various articles of the Covenant. Having been notified of the communication and the Committee’s request for interim measures, the State party breached its obligations under the Optional Protocol by executing the alleged victim before the Committee concluded its consideration of the communication. 6.5 The Committee further recalls that interim measures under rule 92 of its rules of procedure, adopted in accordance with article 39 of the Covenant, are essential to the Committee’s role under the Optional Protocol in order to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. Flouting of the rule, especially by irreversible measures, such as in the present case the execution of Mr. Zhuk, undermines the protection of Covenant rights through the Optional Protocol. 9 6.6 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the Committee made public information regarding the case contrary to article 5, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol through its press release of 30 March 2010 in which it deplores the execution of the victim despite its request for interim measures. The Committee notes that the paragraph in question states that the Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications. The paragraph does not prevent the Committee from making public information regarding failure of the States parties to cooperate with it in the implementation of the Optional Protocol. 6 7 8 9 8 Art. 5, paras. 1 and 4, of the Optional Protocol. See, inter alia, communications No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000, para. 5.1, and No. 1461, 1462, 1476 & 1477/2006, Maksudov et al. v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 16 July 2008, paras. 10.1–10.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 1276/2004, Idieva v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 31 March 2009, para. 7.3, and No. 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, Views adopted on 29 October 2012, para. 9.4. See, inter alia, communications No. 964/2001, Saidova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 8 July 2004, para. 4.4; No. 1280/2004, Tolipkhuzhaev v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2009, para. 6.4; No 2120/2011, Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 9.5.