CCPR/C/128/D/2789/2016 9 (1)–(4) and 14 (1), (2) and (3) (a), (b) and (d) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Belarus on 30 December 1992. The author is represented by counsel. 1.2 On 19 July 2016, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided to grant interim measures under rule 92 of its rules of procedure (now rule 94) and requested the State party not to carry out the death sentence of Mr. Yakovitsky while his case was under examination by the Committee. 1.3 On 29 November 2016, the Committee received information that the author’s father had been executed despite the request for interim measures. On the same date, the Committee requested urgent clarification of the matter from the State party, drawing the State party’s attention to the fact that failure to respect interim measures constituted a violation by States parties of their obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol. No response has been received to date from the State party. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 On 28 July 2015, the author’s father killed T.A. The crime was committed after the author’s father had consumed alcohol, and was motivated by jealousy. During a quarrel between the two, the author’s father beat T.A. severely, and inflicted with considerable force 46 blows on vital organs of her body.1 When he woke up, he found himself next to a dead body and called the police. 2.2. On the same day, the author’s father was arrested on suspicion of murder and detained in the Vileika internal affairs office. Two days later, the author’s father was officially placed in pretrial detention by the order of a prosecutor. He received the order of the prosecutor only on 31 July 2015. He was not brought before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, on either 28 July or 31 July 2015. He was brought before a judge for the first time only in December 2015, as part of his criminal trial. 2.3 On 5 January 2016, the Minsk Regional Court found the author’s father guilty of intentional deprivation of life of another person committed with extreme cruelty, noting that he had already committed a murder and had evaded paying alimony, and sentenced him to death. On 19 January 2016, a cassation appeal was filed with the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Minsk Regional Court; on 8 February 2016, the appeal was amended. On 8 April 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment of 5 January 2016. The author submits that the Regional Court’s judgment entered into force immediately after that. 2.4 In April 2016, the author’s father submitted a request for a pardon from the President of Belarus2 and appealed to the Prosecutor General within the supervisory review procedure. However, his application was dismissed on 25 June 2016. 2.5 On 7 July 2016, the author’s father also appealed through the supervisory review procedure before the Deputy Chair of the Supreme Court. He did not receive a decision, but he noted that according to the Committee’s well-established jurisprudence, the remedy might not be considered to be effective. Moreover, the decision would not be communicated to the convicted person, his lawyers and his relatives until the execution. The author claims that her father exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 2.6 The author also contended at the time of submission that her father could be executed at any time as his sentence had entered into force. She therefore requested the granting of interim measures, namely suspension of the execution of the death penalty, pending the consideration of the communication. Despite the decision of the Committee to grant the request for interim measures, the execution was carried out in November 2016. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party violated her father’s rights under articles 6 (1) and (2), 9 (1)–(4) and 14 (1), (2) and 3 (a), (b) and (d) of the Covenant. In particular, the State party violated her father’s right to life under article 6 of the Covenant. She claims that 1 2 2 The author’s father partially recognized his guilt. It appears he never received an answer.