CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 extradition of the author. The State party breached its obligations under the Optional Protocol by extraditing the author before the Committee could conclude its consideration and examination and the formulation and communication of its Views. 8.3 The Committee recalls8 that interim measures pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, adopted in conformity with article 39 of the Covenant, are essential to the Committee’s role under the Optional Protocol. Flouting of the rule, especially by irreversible measures such as, in the present case, the author’s extradition, undermines the protection of Covenant rights through the Optional Protocol. In the Committee’s view, these circumstances disclose a breach by the State party of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee observes that the author presented an application on the same events before the European Court of Human Rights; however, by a letter dated 29 May 2012, the Court informed the author, inter alia, that the material before it did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. The Committee recalls that, in ratifying the Optional Protocol, the State party did not introduce a reservation excluding the competence of the Committee in relation to cases that have been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.9 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 9.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s submission that excessive force has been used against him and that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his apprehension on 19 August 2011 by Russian and Kyrgyz law enforcement officials. The Committee also notes that the author has attached a copy of an excerpt from his medical record stating that upon detention he was examined by the detention facility’s medical personnel, who established that he had bodily injuries. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not provided any further details concerning what exactly happened during his apprehension and, in particular, who inflicted the injuries he allegedly sustained and how exactly those injuries occurred. In these circumstances and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee concludes that, in the present case, the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his allegations for purposes of admissibility, and, accordingly, declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 The Committee further notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant that he risks being subjected to illtreatment upon extradition to Kyrgyzstan, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Committee notes, however, that the State party has not specified which domestic remedies have not been exhausted by the author to prevent his extradition. The Committee notes that, 8 9 10 See communications No. 964/2001, Saidova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 8 July 2004; No. 2192/2012, N.S. v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 8.3. See, for example, communication no. 1945/2010, Achabal. v. Spain, Views adopted on 27 March 2013, para. 7.2.