CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 years after the alleged ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan in March 2010. The Committee notes, however, that according to this excerpt, the author was treated in an outpatient medical institution in Grozny from 20 to 31 March 2010, while, according to the decision of 26 March 2012 of the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service, the author arrived in Moscow on 24 March 2010. In addition, the Committee observes that, according to the copies of the author’s different appeals submitted to the State party’s authorities, the author did not submit the excerpt to the authorities. Furthermore, the author has not provided any details whatsoever, either to the State party’s authorities or to the Committee, on the ill-treatment suffered in March 2010, in other words there is no information regarding the method of torture, the context or the alleged perpetrators (such as their name and number). The Committee notes that the author’s brother’s complaint of 17 April 2012 to the president of Chechnya does not contain such details either. It also notes that, in his asylum application of 21 December 2011, the author stated that he left Kyrgyzstan in March 2010 owing to the ethnic tensions there; he did not claim that he had been tortured. In addition, the Committee notes the absence of any evidence that would establish that the decisions of the State party’s authorities were clearly arbitrary with respect to the author’s allegations. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan would have exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.15 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the extradition of the author pending the consideration of his communication before the Committee was in contradiction with the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection in the present case, disclosing a violation by the Russian Federation of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.16 12. The State party is under an obligation to avoid violations of article 1 of the Optional Protocol in the future and to comply with the requests of the Committee for interim measures.17 15 16 17 12 See, for example, communication No. 2192/2012, N.S. v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 10.4. Ibid, para. 11. Ibid, para. 12.