CCPR/C/122/D/2182/2012 6.2 The Committee observes that by adhering to the Optional Protocol, a State party to the Covenant recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in a State’s adherence to the Optional Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications and, after examination, to forward its Views to the State party and the individual (art. 5 (1) and (4)). It is incompatible with these obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication and in the expression of its Views. 5 It is up to the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered. By failing to accept the competence of the Committee to determine whether a communication should be registered and by declaring beforehand that it will not accept the Committee’s determination on the admissibility or the merits of the communication, the State party has violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.6 Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 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 international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the author has failed to request that the Chairperson of Minsk City Court, the Chairperson of the Supreme Court or the Prosecutor General’s Office initiate a supervisory review of the decisions of the domestic courts. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a petition to a Prosecutor’s Office requesting a review of court decisions that have taken effect does not constitute a remedy that has to be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7 It also considers that filing requests for supervisory review to the chairperson 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. 8 Given that the State party has not done so, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was detained overnight for seven hours in a cell with no beds or chairs and only one wooden board that he and another detainee used for sleeping; that the room temperature in the cell was between 10C and 14C, which resulted in him being constantly cold and having difficulty sleeping; that there was no separate toilet; and that the food was salty. He alleges that the conditions of his detention caused him physical and mental suffering and, taken as a whole, amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. While emphasizing that certain conditions of detention that subject a detainee to inhuman and degrading treatment can violate article 7, the Committee refers to paragraph 4 of its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which reads: “The Covenant does not contain any definition of 5 6 7 8 4 See Levinov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1867/2009, 1936, 1975, 1977-1981, 2010/2010), para 8.2; and Poplavny v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2019/2010), para. 6.2. See Korneenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1226/2003), para. 8.2. See Alekseev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/109/D/1873/2009), para. 8.4; Lozenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1929/2010), para. 6.3; and Sudalenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2016/2010), para. 7.3. See Gelazauskas v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/77/D/836/1998), para. 7.4; Sekerko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/1851/2008), para. 8.3; and Schumilin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1784/2008), para. 8.3.