CAT/C/53/D/482/2011 Appendix [Original: English] Individual (dissenting) opinion of Committee member Mr. Alessio Bruni 1. On 11 November 2011, under rule 114 of its rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party to stay enforcement of the order to expel the complainants while their complaint was being considered by the Committee. However, the State party expelled one of them in March 2014. 2. It is my opinion that the non-compliance of the State party with the Committee’s request for interim protection measures does not constitute a violation of article 22 of the Convention “per se”. 3. It constitutes a lack of cooperation by the State party with the Committee during the Committee’s examination of the communication and an obstacle to the Committee’s full application of protection measures provided for in its rules of procedure with regard to individual communications. 4. The long-standing question of whether the Committee’s rules of procedure and, in particular, rule 114 on interim measures, are legally binding on a State party to the Convention requires further discussion in the Committee. 5. However, I believe that the Committee must, at least, notify the State party that it considers a non-compliance with its rule 114 as a breach of the State party’s obligations under article 22 of the Convention before taking the decision that the State party has violated that article. 6. In the case in question, the Committee had before it the information necessary to review its decision to grant interim measures in accordance with rule 114, paragraph 3. The information had been submitted by the State party on 10 May 2012 together with its request for lifting the interim measures. Comments on it had been submitted by the complainants on 10 July 2012. However, the Committee did not address the issue. It was not obliged to do so, but, in reply to the State party’s request, it should have notified the State party that it would have considered the expulsion of the complainants or one of them as a breach of article 22 of the Convention. 7. In the absence of such notification, I do consider that the Committee’s decision that the State party was in breach of its obligations under article 22 of the Convention was not justified. GE.15-00578 11