CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 religion, that he would not be subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment and that his right to defence would be ensured. 7.5 The State party also submits that, after the author’s extradition, an investigation revealed that he had participated in more crimes and that the Office of the Procurator General of Kyrgyzstan requested and received, on 13 August 2013, the permission of the Russian Federation to bring additional charges against him. The State party notes that the author is accused of common crimes and not of participation in the mass riots that took place in June 2010 and that he is of Kyrgyz ethnicity. 7.6 The State party also submits that the author filed an appeal against the 28 February 2012 decision of the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service almost two months later, on 20 April 2012 and that the appeal against the 8 June 2012 decision of the Federal Migration Service was filed only on 4 September 2012. The State party maintains that the above shows that the author was deliberately extending the duration of the proceedings. The State party also submits that the appeal against the 8 June 2012 decision of the Federal Migration Service was rejected on 19 October 2012 and that the above decision entered into force on 20 November 2012. The author’s lawyer had missed the deadline for appeal of that decision and she applied for its restoration; her application was granted on 29 November 2012. The procurator’s office was not notified of the restoration of the deadline, because it was not a party to those proceedings. Further, on 22 January 2013, the Moscow City Court rejected the appeal against the 19 October 2012 decision. 7.7 The State party refers to the European Court’s judgement in the case of Latipov v. Russia,13 in which the Court stated that the general human rights situation in a country may not be the sole ground to forbid the extradition of an individual, but that the individual claiming that he or she is at risk of torture must present further evidence. The State party maintains that the author had not presented evidence that he or his family had been subjected to cruel treatment and that the information it had regarding the criminal prosecutions against him between 2006 and 2010 do not show that the Kyrgyz justice had been harsh and unjust, nor that there were violations of the pretrial investigation procedure. 7.8 The State party further submits that the Office of the Procurator General of Kyrgyzstan provided additional guarantees for the rights of the author, namely the possibility for diplomatic representatives of the Russian Federation to visit him in the places of detention in order to control that his rights are respected. According to information from the Office of the Procurator General of Kyrgyzstan at the time of the State party’s submission the author was detained in Holding Facility No. 1 in Bishkek and that he had not filed any complaints regarding unlawful methods of investigation. He was to be tried in the Ysyk-Ata District Court in the Chuisk region. Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation organized a verification of whether the rights of the author had been respected by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Kyrgyzstan.14 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Non-respect of the Committee’s request for interim measures 8.1 The Committee notes that the State party extradited the author although his communication had been registered under the Optional Protocol and a request for interim measures of protection had been addressed to the State party in this respect. The Committee 13 14 10 Latipov v. Russia (application No. 77658/11), European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 12 December 2013. The State party does not provide the date of the verification, the names of who participated in it or its findings.