CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 legally. The author finds it surprising that the authorities are suggesting a way to circumvent their own migration regulations, without any explanation as to why, if the State party accepts that he has genuine family ties in the country, relevant documents cannot be issued to him while in the Russian Federation.11 5.5 The author maintains that he has done nothing to abuse his right to submit an individual communication and notes that the State party does not make any reference to the Committee’s case law to support that contention. According to the prevailing Russian legal doctrine, which is based on article 10 of the Russian Civil Code, abuse of right is an exercise of a right with the sole intent to damage the “lawful interests” of the other party. The author maintains that, even under that doctrine, a complaint to an adjudicative body cannot be considered an abuse of right when it is not made with the intent to damage the “lawful interests” of other parties. He maintains that he submitted his communication to the Committee in order to seek international protection of his human rights. State party’s additional observations on admissibility 6.1 On 17 August 2012, the State party reiterated its previous submission on the admissibility of the communication (see paras. 4.1–4.6). 6.2 The State party further submits that the author has not filed any further appeals, such as an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. According to article 126 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, article 19 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Judicial System and article 9 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Courts of General Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority on administrative cases. The State party further maintains that the author repeatedly failed to use the opportunity to legalize his stay in the territory of the Russian Federation. The State party submits that the allegations of the author that there is a decision of the authorities of the Russian Federation to deport him and that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies in accordance with articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol are unfounded and unreliable. The State party maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible, inter alia for abuse of the right of submission. Author’s further comments on admissibility 7.1 On 19 October 2012, the author notes that the State party’s observations are essentially identical to its observations submitted on 16 April 2012 and refers to his own submission of 10 June 2012. 7.2 The author further submits that a request for a supervisory review, as proposed by the State party, does not constitute an effective domestic remedy to be pursued by the author. 12 He further submits that, meanwhile, after the Committee’s interim measures request, the author had once again been refused temporary asylum in the Russian Federation.13 He therefore maintains that he is at imminent and real risk of deportation. If deported the author will not be able to re-enter the Russian Federation (section 26 of the “Exit from Russian and Entry into Russia Act”) and will be separated from his family for many years. 11 12 13 8 The author refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Kiyutin v. Russia, judgment of 10 March 2011, Application no. 2700/10, para. 69. The author refers in particular to the Committee’s Views in communication No. 1866/2009, Chebotareva v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 26 March 2012. The author submits a copy of a letter from the Russian Federal Migration Service for St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region, dated 11 October 2012.