Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/3212/2018 asylum application because they arrived in Australia on a different date and as a result, they were prevented from engaging the same type of visa application, which constitutes arbitrariness. Furthermore, the author argues that his removal was not proportionate to the aims pursued. He explains that the suffering and hardship he and his family have had to endure as a result of their long term separation that pursues the State party’s immigration policies, impose an excessive burden on them, which cannot be justified by the mere rejection of the author’s protection visa. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s non-compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures, the author submits that he informed the State party’s competent authorities about the submission of his complaint to the Committee and that he had requested interim measures. He further notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also made appeals to the State authorities not to deport him, as this would contravene the basic right of family unity, as well as the fundamental principle of the best interests of the child. With regard to the State party’s argument that once the author was deported, it no longer exercised jurisdiction or control over him, the author notes that at least during the period of his travel from Australia to Sri Lanka and the period that followed immediately thereafter, the State party still exercised effective control. In any event, the author notes that the State party has good bilateral relations with Sri Lanka especially in immigration matters, so it does have the means to reunite the author with his family in compliance with article 2 of the Convention. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 20 October 2020, the State party submitted additional observations on the merits of the complaint. 6.2 Regarding the author’s claims under article 17 in conjunction with article 23 (1) of the Covenant, the State party reiterates its position as explained in its initial observations. It further contests the author’s allegation that it exercises effective control over territory in Sri Lanka in respect of the author for the purposes of the extraterritorial application of its Covenant obligations. It argues that where a State does not have effective control over the territory in which a person is located, that State will only have effective control over an individual if its officials detain or otherwise take physical custody of him. Therefore, the author was no longer under the State party’s effective control once he disembarked the aircraft. As regards the author’s claim that he had informed the State authorities of the submission of his complaint to the Committee, in which he requested interim measures, the State party submits that a request for interim measures can have no effect until such time as it has been issued by the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The Committee’s request for interim measures 7.1 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that it was unable to implement the Committee’s request for interim measures because the author had been returned to Sri Lanka on 17 July 2018, prior to the State party having received the Committee’s request for interim measures. 7.2 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to now rule 94 of its rules of procedure (former rule 92), in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect the interim measure requested by the Committee with a view to preventing irreparable harm undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. As indicated in paragraph 19 of the Committee’s general comment No. 33 (2008) on the obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol, failure to implement interim measures is incompatible with the obligation to respect in good faith the procedure of individual communications established under the Optional Protocol.11 7.3 In the present case, the Committee notes the information provided by the author, according to which he was issued, on 13 July 2018, a deportation notice for 16 July 2018 11 B.A. et al v Austria (CCPR/C/127/D/2956/2017), paras. 9.1 and 9.2. 5