CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009 since that article permits the death penalty, with the limitation that the sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women. The State party submits that its legislation places further limits on the use of the death penalty than the Covenant does, since it can only be imposed for the most serious crime – murder with aggravated circumstances – and it cannot be imposed on women, minors or men older than 65 years of age. It maintains that, in convicting the author, the court took into consideration his personality and the cruelty of the murders and of the other grave crimes committed by him. 4.3 The State party also submits that every case involving the death penalty is additionally reviewed by the Presidential Pardons Commission and then by the President himself. 4.4 On 21 April 2010, in response to the press release issued by the Committee on 30 March 2010, the State party submitted that the Committee had made public information regarding the case, in contradiction of article 5, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol. The State party submits that it did not breach its commitments under the Covenant or the Optional Protocol thereto, since capital punishment is not prohibited by international law and it is not a party to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. It further notes that it recognizes the competence of the Committee under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, but that the Committee’s “attempts to pass its rules of procedure off as the international commitments of States parties … are absolutely inadmissible”. It reiterates that it has not violated the Optional Protocol since it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications submitted directly by individuals who claim to be victims of a violation of a right, but not from a third party, and that it has cooperated with the Committee in a spirit of goodwill and provided it with all the relevant information on the case. It further submits that domestic legislation obliges its courts to implement immediately verdicts that have entered into force and that the Optional Protocol does not contain provisions obliging States parties to stop the execution of a death sentence until a review of the convict’s complaints by the Committee is completed. It maintains that the position of the Committee that executions should be halted in such cases is not binding and has only “recommendative” in nature. It submits that the issue could be resolved by amending the Optional Protocol. It further submits that the State party imposes and carries out capital punishment in extremely rare cases and that the issue is currently being debated in its Parliament. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 14 March 2012, counsel, on behalf of the author, submitted that neither an application for presidential pardon, nor the supervisory review procedure before the Supreme Court in Belarus could be considered an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of the Optional Protocol. As to the presidential pardon, counsel for the author maintains that it does not represent an effective domestic remedy that needs to be exhausted before applying to the Human Rights Committee, because it is a measure of a humanitarian nature and not a legal remedy.5 He further submits that, according to the established jurisprudence of the Committee, the supervisory review procedure is not an effective domestic remedy that has to be exhausted, and adds that an appeal submitted under that procedure would not automatically result in the consideration of the substance of the case. Instead, a public official, usually the Chair of a court, would consider the issue unilaterally and might reject the request. The counsel for the author submits that this unilateral review, 5 The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 6.4, and No. 1132/2002, Chisanga v. Zambia, Views adopted on 18 October 2005, para. 6.3. 5