CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009 sentenced to death and that the sentence could be carried out at any time. On 12 October 2009, the Committee transmitted to the State party a request not to carry out the death sentence while the case was under examination by the Committee. On 13 November 2009, the Committee reiterated its request. On 23 March 2010, the Committee received information that the author had been executed, despite its request for interim measures of protection. 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 that it was subsequently 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 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 obligations of the State party under the Covenant nugatory and futile.9 In the present case, the author alleges that his rights under various articles of the Covenant have been violated. Having been notified of the communication and the request by the Committee for interim measures, the State party breached its obligations under the Optional Protocol by executing the alleged victim before the Committee had 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 its role under the Optional Protocol, in order to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. Flouting of that rule, especially by irreversible measures, such as in the present case the execution of Mr. Yuzepchuk, undermines the protection of Covenant rights through the Optional Protocol.10 6.6 The Committee notes the submission by the State party 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 deplored 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 the failure of States parties to cooperate with it in the implementation of the Optional Protocol. Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9 10 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; and Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus, para. 9.5. 7