CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 recalls15 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). 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 to the individual (art. 5 (1) and (4)).16 8.2 Apart from any violation of the Covenant found against a State party in a communication, a State party commits serious breaches of its obligations under the Optional Protocol if its action or inaction serves to prevent or frustrate consideration by the Committee of a communication alleging a violation of the Covenant, or to render examination by the Committee moot and the expression of its Views nugatory and futile. In the present communication, the author alleged that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant would be violated, should he be extradited to Kyrgyzstan. On 22 August 2012, the Committee requested the State party not to extradite the author to Kyrgyzstan pending consideration of his communication and reiterated its request on 15 November 2012. Despite that, the State party proceeded with the extradition of the author. The State party breached its obligations under the Optional Protocol by extraditing the author before the Committee could conclude its consideration and examination and the formulation and communication of its Views. 8.3 The Committee recalls17 that interim measures pursuant to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, adopted in conformity with article 39 of the Covenant, are essential to the Committee’s role under the Optional Protocol. Flouting of the rule, especially by irreversible measures such as, in the present case, the author’s extradition undermines the protection of Covenant rights through the Optional Protocol. In the Committee’s view, these circumstances disclose a serious breach by the State party of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 9.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that, before submitting a communication to the Committee, the author had submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee, however, observes that the author withdrew his application before the case had been examined by that Court. The Committee therefore decides that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 9.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that his right under article 9 of the Covenant had been violated, since the initial ruling ordering his detention on remand had been issued by the Butyrsky Interregional Procurator’s Office, in the absence of an order of a Russian court in violation of article 108, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee, however, observes that the author has not presented evidence that he had 15 16 17 See communication No. 869/1999, Piandiong at al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000. See communication No. 1910/2009, Zhuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 30 October 2013, para. 6.2 and communications Nos. 1461/2006, 1462/2006, 1476/2006 and 1477/2006, Maksudov et al v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 16 July 2008, para. 10.1. See communication No. 964/2001, Saidova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 8 July 2004. 11