CCPR/C/129/D/2445/2014 Committee notes that, on 26 June 2014, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the request for interim measures and informed the applicant that, in these circumstances, the case file would be destroyed in due course without further consideration.6 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by virtue of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 7.4 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication due to non-exhaustion of the available domestic remedies. The State party has observed in this regard that the author has failed to complain to the Presidium of the Supreme Court under the supervisory review proceedings as set out under article 412 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which filing requests for supervisory review with the president of a court with respect to court decisions that have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power of a judge constitutes an extraordinary remedy, and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.7 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not shown whether or in how many cases petitions to the Supreme Court for supervisory review procedures were successful in cases of allegations of torture and ill-treatment. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant to the effect that, in the event of extradition, as a member of an ethnic minority as a Tajik in Kyrgyzstan, he would be at risk of persecution and inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment, including torture. 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s submission in support of his claims regarding the occurrence of torture in Kyrgyzstan, including against members of the Uzbek minority and in particular in the south of Kyrgyzstan. It further notes that the author has also claimed, without, however, providing any further substantiation or explanation, that he was persecuted on the basis of his ethnicity while in detention in Kyrgyzstan. 7.7 On the basis of the material on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims. It considers in particular that the author has failed to link the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan to his personal context. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his allegations for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the author’s claims under article 7 inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 6 7 Application No. 46381/14. A copy of the letter from the European Court of Human Rights, dated 26 June 2014, is on file. Gelazauskas v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/77/D/836/1998), para. 7.4; Sekerko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/1851/2008), para. 8.3; Protsko and Tolchin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/19191920/2009), para. 6.5; Schumilin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1784/2008), para. 8.3; P.L. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/102/D/1814/2008), para. 6.2; and Taysumov et al. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/128/DR/2339/2014), para. 8.5. 7