CCPR/C/116/D/2198/2012 5.3 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the author failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies in that he did not file any appeals to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation within the supervisory review procedure. The Committee notes that the author’s appeal against the decision of the Moscow Regional Court had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 1 that filing requests for supervisory review with the president of a court directed against court decisions that have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power of a judge constitutes an extraordinary remedy and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.2 The State party has not shown, however, whether and in how many cases petitions within the supervisory review procedure were applied successfully in extradition cases. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 5.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his extradition to Belarus would breach his rights, inter alia, under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the author claims that he risks being subjected to torture and ill-treatment upon return. In this connection, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 4 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.5 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 6 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 See communications No. 836/1998, Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, Views adopted on 17 March 2003, para. 7.4; No. 1851/2008, Sekerko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 8.3; Nos. 1919-1920/2009, Protsko and Tolchin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 1 November 2013, para. 6.5; No. 1784/2008, Schumilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.3; No. 1814/2008, P.L. v. Belarus, decision adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.2 ; No. 2021/2010, E.Z. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3; No. 1873/2009, Alekseev v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 25 October 2013, para. 8.4; No. 2041/2011, Dorofeev v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 11 July 2014, para. 9.6; and No. 2141/2012, Arkadyevich v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 23 October 2015, para. 6.3. See, for example, Dorofeev v. Russian Federation, para. 9.6; Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, para. 7.4; P.L. v. Belarus, para. 6.2 ; communication No. 1785/2008, Olechkevich v. Belarus, Views adopted on 18 March 2013, para. 7.3; Schumilin v. Belarus, para. 8.3; communications No. 1839/2008, Komarovsky v. Belarus, Views adopted on 25 October 2013, para. 8.3; No. 1903/2009, Youbko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 17 March 2014, para. 8.3; No. 1929/2010, Lozenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 October 2014, para. 6.3; and Arkadyevich v. Russian Federation, para. 6.3. See general comment No. 31, para. 12. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. 5