CCPR/C/126/D/2989/2017 2.6 On an unspecified date the author submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. On an unspecified date, the Court rejected the author’s request for interim measures and the author withdrew his application. 2.7 The author refers to several reports by Belarusian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) alleging inhuman conditions of detention in SIZO No. 1 in Minsk, where he would be placed after his extradition to Belarus.1 According to the reports, the size of an average cell in this facility is 15 m2 and holds at times 15 to 18 persons. Fifteen people receive five spoons for 30 minutes to allow them to eat. In winter there is ice on the walls and in summer they are wet and covered with fungi. Once every two days detainees are allowed to go out into the fresh air for 30 minutes. SIZO No.1 offers poor medical care. The author has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and was operated on in Lithuania due to streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria. The author submits that SIZO No. 1 does not have the infrastructure for detainees to have physical contact with their families and therefore he will not be able to have intimate relations with his wife. He claims that according to the NGO Viasna, only one out of 540 persons accused is acquitted in Belarus. 2 On that basis the author alleges that he does not have chances to have a fair trial in case of extradition to Belarus. The author also submits that prisoners in Belarus are not allowed to vote. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania to deny him subsidiary protection, allowing his extradition to Belarus and ensuing detention in SIZO No.1, violates his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant in view of the conditions of detention in that facility. 3.2 The author further claims that his extradition will violate article 14 (1) of the Covenant since the Belarusian public servants have already tried to extract bribes from him. He submits that the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has not ordered Lithuanian diplomats to follow his trial and that the Views of the Committee are not implemented by Belarus. 3.3 The author further claims that in view of impossibility of having intimate relations with his wife, since there is no such possibility in SIZO No.1 or in any other Belarusian detention facility, the State party will violate his rights to privacy and to family life under article 17 of the Covenant, should he be extradited. 3.4 Lastly, the author claims that the State party will violate his right to vote under article 25 (b) of the Covenant, since Belarusian law does not recognize the right of prisoners to vote. 3.5 The author requests the Committee to find a violation of his rights under the abovementioned articles of the Covenant and to ask the State party to stop his extradition while the communication is pending before the Committee, re-open his case and compensate him for related costs and damages. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By note verbale of 11 July 2016, the State party submitted its observations arguing that the communication is inadmissible as it is unsubstantiated under articles 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol and asked the Committee to lift its request for interim measures. The State party submits in addition that the author has failed to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies and is misleading the Committee as to the domestic remedies available to him. 1 2 See Viasna Human Rights Center, “Отчет по результатам мониторинга мест ринудительного содержания в Республике Беларусь” (2016) and Belarusskaya Prauda, “СИЗО No. 1, или ‘Володарка’: не верь, не бойся, не проси” (6 June 2016) at http://belprauda.org/sizo-1-ilivolodarka-ne-ver-ne-bojsya-ne-prosi/. “Адвокаты жалуются, что практически невозможно защитить клиента” (3 February 2017), available at at http://spring96.org/ru/news/85880. 3