CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 6.8 Owing to the fact that the author had committed crimes based on his religious convictions, the officers of the National Security Committee held two conversations with him of a “prophylactic nature”. These conversations were held in the presence of the prison administration and allegations of “pressure” on the author are unfounded. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 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 investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author failed to file a cassation appeal or a request for a supervisory review before the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. The Committee notes that the author’s aunt submitted two supervisory review requests on behalf of the author, which were rejected by the prosecutor’s office on 7 December 2010 and 24 August 2011. Additionally, the Committee considers that filing requests for supervisory review with the president of a court 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. 26 The State party has not shown, however, whether and in how many cases requests to the president of the Supreme Court for supervisory review were successful in cases concerning torture and fair trial. Regarding the cassation appeal, the Committee notes that the procedure came into force only on 1 July 2012, that is, after the author submitted his claims to the Committee 27. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 7.4 The Committee further notes the State party’s argumentation to the effect that the author’s claims are inadmissible ratione temporis. The Committee observes that it is precluded ratione temporis from examining alleged violations of the Covenant that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, unless the violations complained of continue after that date or continue to have effects that in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant 28 or an affirmation of a prior violation. 29 In this light, the Committee notes that the alleged violations under article 9 all occurred before entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. The Committee is therefore precluded by the reasons of ratione temporis from considering this part of the author’s claims. 7.5 Regarding the author’s claims under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), the Committee notes that the author contends that the violations that he 26 27 28 29 10 Communications No. 1919-1920/2009, Protsko and Tolchin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 1 November 2013, para. 6.5; No. 1851/2008, Sekerko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 8.3; No. 1784/2008, Schumilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.3; No. 1814/2008, P.L. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility, 26 July 2011, para. 6.2; and No. 836/1998, Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, Views adopted on 17 March 2003, para 7.4. The Committee also notes the author’s contention that his aunt filed a cassation appeal on his behalf on 24 February 2010 (see para 2.10 above), and his argument in paragraph 2.11 above, that he only had 15 days to prepare his cassation appeal, but that, during these days, he was being transferred to a prison from a detention facility. See, inter alia, communications No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 25 March 2013, para. 8.2; No. 1633/2007, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, Views adopted on 25 October 2010, para. 6.2; and No. 1367/2005, Anderson v. Australia, inadmissibility decision adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 7.3. See communication No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 25 March 2013, para. 8.3.