CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 5.5 On 8 August 2012, on the basis of the above facts, the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, which on 21 August 2012 informed the author that his application was inadmissible. 5.6 Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the State party refers to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol and submits that, before submitting a communication to the Committee the author had submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights. 5.7 The State party further submits that the author’s complaint under article 9 of the Covenant is unfounded as the decisions for his detention and the extension of the detention were taken by the Russian courts in accordance with the established order and the author used his right to judicial appeal against these decisions. With regard to the author’s claims of potential violations of his rights in relation to the denial to grant him refugee status, the State party notes that there is no such right under the Covenant. Therefore the above claims are incompatible with the Covenant and should be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 5.8 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the States parties to the Covenant have the right to control the entry of foreign citizens into their territories and their residence in accordance with the international law principles and their treaty obligations. Article 7 may be applicable to prevent deportation or extradition in cases when the risk that the individual will be subjected to cruel treatment in the receiving country originates from deliberate actions of the public authorities in that country or from deliberate actions of non-State actors, when the public authorities cannot provide the complainant with adequate protection. In order to review the case in the light of article 7, it must be established that at the moment of extradition a real risk existed that the author would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. When determining the existence of such risk, the competent authorities take into consideration all the relevant circumstances, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The burden of proof generally falls on the author, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.4 If such evidence is presented, the State party must fully refute it. In determining the risk of cruel treatment, one must take into consideration the foreseeable consequences of the deportation of the author to the receiving country, including the general situation in that country and the personal circumstances of the author. The State party further maintains that the mere possibility of ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of article 7,5 but the specific allegations made by the author require corroboration by other evidence.6 5.9 The State party submits that the author’s allegations of torture could not be taken as proof and were not corroborated in any way. Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan is a party to the Covenant and has its own obligations under its provisions towards the Russian Federation and the international community as a whole. Accordingly, it was not possible to conclude that there were serious grounds to believe that the author would be subjected to treatment 4 5 6 6 The State party refers to Saadi v. Italy (application No. 37201/06), European Court of Human Rights judgement of 28 February 2008, para. 129. The State party refers to Vilvarajah and others v. the United Kingdom (applications Nos. 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87 and 13448/87), European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 30 October 1991, para. 111. The State party refers to Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, (applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99), European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 4 February 2005, para. 73.