CCPR/C/126/D/2989/2017 observations of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/BLR/CO/5). The author refers in particular to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture in which the Committee notes the deplorable conditions of places of deprivation of liberty in Belarus. 10.3 The author claims that the NGO reports provided by him in his initial submission describe the situation in Belarus detention facilities, among them SIZO No.1 in Minsk. Having the status of a remand prisoner in SIZO No.1 makes his allegations about the conditions of detention there feel personal. The burden of proof is on the State party to provide evidence that detention compatible with articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant is possible. 10.4 The author clarifies that he does not claim that there should be a total ban on extradition to Belarus. However, in cases where an extradition request concerns the death penalty or life imprisonment, the State party makes an arrangement with the requesting party that the death penalty will not be applied and that the individual concerned be released on parole after 20 years in prison. By analogy, the State party should make an arrangement with Belarus that the author will not be detained or imprisoned and that the sanction will be limited to a fine or house arrest. 10.5 Replying to the State party’s allegation that the author returned to Belarus in 2009, the author clarifies that he stopped going there after he found out about the detention order dated 10 June 2006. 10.6 According to the author, the State party’s statement that his pretrial detention could be substituted for a less restrictive measure is a speculation without any supporting evidence. 10.7 The author repeats his claims under articles 7, 10 (1), 14 (1), 17 and 25 (b), asks the Committee for compensation of non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 10,000 euros and for compensation of the costs of the proceedings. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 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. 11.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies and abused the right to submission by misleading the Committee on the matter. The Committee also notes the author’s argument that the domestic remedies in the expulsion proceedings were not effective and that the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania of 17 May 2017 rejecting his asylum claim was the final effective remedy. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that there is no formal obligation to exhaust all domestic remedies in the context of extradition. The threshold of imminence, however, requires that domestic remedies capable of suspending a removal are utilized. 11.4 Referring to the author’s argument that there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies in the context of extradition, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, although there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have no chance of being successful, authors of communications must exercise due diligence in the pursuit of 7