PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture 2.2.1 In What Circumstances Might Interim Measures be Required? The vast majority of requests for interim measures by the HRC and the CAT Committee have arisen in two situations. The first situation is when the relevant State party has decided to deport an individual to a country where the deportee claims that he or she faces a foreseeable risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or a real risk of facing a death sentence.322 The deporting State is often requested to refrain from deportation while the complaint is being heard. The second situation is when the complainant is facing the death penalty, and seeks to argue that the imposition of this penalty breaches his or her rights.323 The State is normally requested to refrain from executing the individual while the complaint is being heard. While these categories reflect the most common circumstances giving rise to a request for interim measures, there are many other situations in which they could be required, such as provision of medical assistance to an ill person, provision to protect persons who have received threats while they were seeking remedies or provision of protection for themselves, their relatives or their clients (in the case of lawyers), or for persons at high risk within a community.324 For instance, in Indira Umarova v. Uzbekistan, the HRC requested the State party to adopt measures to guarantee the life of the alleged victim who was in detention “by providing him with the necessary and appropriate medical care and by abstaining from administering any drugs detrimental to his mental or physical health, so as to avoid irreparable harm to him, while the case was under consideration of the Committee”.325 In Benali v. Libya, the victim had been kept in incommunicado detention in undisclosed locations for several long periods over thirteen years. At the moment the complaint was filed, he was, once more, reportedly disappeared since his relatives had not known about his fate or whereabouts for some months. In this context, the HRC requested the State party to “adopt all necessary measures to protect the life, safety and personal integrity of Abdeladim Ali Mussa Benali, so as to avoid irreparable damage to him”.326 Furthermore, in several cases the HRC asked the State to provide protection to persons who were threatened for lodging a complaint.327 For instance, 322 See HRC, Israil v. Kazakhstan, Comm. No. 2024/2011, para. 1.2. 323 HRC: Larrañaga v. The Philippines, Comm. No. 1421/2005, para. 1.2; Agabekov v. Uzbekistan, Comm. No. 1071/2002, para. 1.2. 324 HRC, Ominayak v. Canada, Comm. No. 167/1984, para. 14; see also Pasqualucci (2005), pp. 26–34. 325 HRC, Umarova v. Uzbekistan, Comm. No. 1449/2006, para. 1.2. See also HRC, Altesor v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 10/1977, para. 4(c); Muteba v. Zaire, Comm. No. 124/1982, para. 7.4. 326 HRC, Benali v. Libya, Comm. No. 1805/2008, para. 1.2. 327 HRC, Gunaratna v. Sri Lanka, Comm. No. 1432/2005, para. 1.2; Peiris v. Sri Lanka, Comm. No. 1862/2009, para. 1.2. 103