CAT/C/55/D/500/2012 Appendix [Original: English] Individual (dissenting) opinion of Committee member Mr. Alessio Bruni 1. It is my opinion that the second sentence in paragraph 17.12 of the Committee’s decision, reading “The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include the observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 114 of its rules of procedure concerning requests for interim measures to avoid irreparable damage to the victim” should be deleted. Rules of procedure are adopted by the Committee unilaterally, they are not subscribed to by States parties. 2. However, the non-compliance by a State party with interim measures requested by the Committee constitutes a clear sign of lack of cooperation which undermines the Committee’s effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate under article 22 of the Convention and should be clearly condemned. 3. Therefore, it is my opinion that instead of the words “[…] the State party did not take into account its obligations under article 22 of the Convention” appearing in the last line of paragraph 17.12 of the Committee’s decision, the following words would have better reflected the facts of the case: “[…] the State party did not comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures and raised a serious doubt about its willingness to implement article 22 of the Convention in good faith”. 4. In addition, paragraph 18 of the decision should be reformulated as follows: “The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 1 , 2 operative paragraph 1, and 12 to 15 of the Convention.” 5. The following paragraph should also be added after paragraph 18: “In addition, the non-compliance by the State party with the Committee’s reiterated requests for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure caused serious damage to the effectiveness of the Committee ’s deliberations and raised a serious doubt about the willingness of the State party to implement article 22 of the Convention in good faith.” GE.15-17782 19/19