CAT/C/49/D/346/2008 complainant citing article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That being so, the same question has been brought before another international body. Moreover, in a decision dated 24 June 2008 regarding a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Court that would suspend the extradition of the complainant, the President of Section V of the European Court of Human Rights decided not to indicate the requested interim measure to the State party. 4.3 Moreover, the State party contends that, prior to submitting a complaint to the Committee, the complainant should have ensured that all domestic remedies had been exhausted. In the event, the complainant did not avail himself of the opportunity to file an appeal, under article 90 of the Constitution, with the Supreme Court to overrule the State’s decision to extradite him.5 Furthermore, articles 39 and 44 of the law of 16 April 1963 on the organization and procedures of the Supreme Court provide for urgent measures with respect to the suspension of the execution of an order and interim relief. Article 40 offers the opportunity for the complainant to request the suspension of the execution of a decision until the Supreme Court rules on the merits. No such appeal has been filed by the complainant, however, and domestic remedies have therefore not been exhausted. 4.4 The State party is of the opinion that the prospect of extradition did not render such an appeal ineffective. Although extradition is recognized in international law as a sovereign act, the Supreme Court has ruled that an extradition may come within its purview if the nature of the case is such that it appears to “depart from the requirements of normal extradition practice”,6 which is what the complainant continued to claim by arguing that proper procedures were not followed in the course of his judicial appeals. Moreover, even though the law does not expressly refer to a suspensive effect, decisions on extradition may not be put into effect until the Director of Judicial Services is able to provide a full report on all aspects of the case to the Prince in line with the procedures set out in the Extradition Act of 28 December 1999 and, in particular, those relating to ongoing proceedings as provided for under article 17 of the Act. The State party notes that, in any case, the Prince did not authorize the extradition of the complainant until 2 July 2008, that is, after the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee had refused to grant interim measures. State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 5 January 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. With regard to the human rights situation in Brazil, the State party acknowledged the criticisms reported in the press regarding overcrowding in prisons in Brazil, as noted by the Committee itself in its concluding observations on Brazil dated 16 May 2001. However, the State party also notes that, in its observations, the Committee also acknowledged a number of positive developments, such as the legislative reform of April 1997, which made it possible to punish acts of torture as criminal offences. The Brazilian authorities’ concern about the need to improve prison conditions led to the ratification on 12 January 2007 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 18 December 2002. Regardless of whether or not the Committee’s recommendations were implemented by Brazil, the complainant was entitled to avail himself of a domestic remedy under the aforementioned law of April 1997. 5 6 GE.13-40769 Article 90 of the Constitution, which defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, states that, in administrative matters, the Supreme Court may issue final rulings on: “(2) appeals in cassation against decisions of administrative courts of final instance”. See the Supreme Court judgement in the Van Troyes case of 28 June 1986. 5