CAT/C/54/D/542/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure 9.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect that provision, in particular through such irreparable action as extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention.6 9.2 The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to it on 8 April 2013, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention because it prevented the Committee from fully examining a complaint relating to a violation of the Convention, rendering the action by the Committee futile and its findings without effect. Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party argued that the complainant failed to exhaust available domestic remedies concerning the extradition decision by the Office of the Procurator General of 15 January 2013. The Committee notes that, in his submission of 19 March 2013, the complainant provided the text of the appeal decision of the Regional Court of Nizhny Novgorod dated 26 February 2013; on 4 June 2013, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee of the rejection of his appeal by the Supreme Court; and, on 24 September 2013, counsel submitted the text of the Supreme Court decision. The Committee also notes that the State party has not specified which additional domestic remedies had to be exhausted and could have been effective in preventing the complainant’s extradition. The Committee therefore notes that, at the moment of considering the present communication, the domestic remedies have been exhausted and that it is not prevented by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 10.3 The Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible, as it raises issues under article 3 of the Convention, and proceeds to examining it on the merits. 6 8 See communication No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision on admissibility of 15 November 2011, paras. 10.1 and 10.2.