CAT/C/70/D/915/2019 high-level law-enforcement officers, the widespread nature of corruption at all levels, especially in the Russian law enforcement agencies, and poor detention conditions. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 The State party provided its observations on admissibility by note verbale of 3 May 2019. It notes that, on 8 July 2016, the Obninsk City Court of Kaluga Province found the complainant guilty of mediation in bribery committed with preliminary intent by a group of people. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, which the Kaluga Provincial Court of Appeal reduced to three and a half years following an amendment to the Criminal Code. On 11 July 2016, a search warrant was issued against the complainant, in accordance with a decision of the Obninsk City Court. On 27 January 2017, INTERPOL issued an international search warrant. 4.2 The complainant and his family sought asylum in Georgia on 20 July 2017. On 29 June 2018, the Ministry of Internally Displaced People from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia rejected their asylum application. Tbilisi City Court upheld this decision on 7 February 2019. The complainant’s appeal against the decision of Tbilisi City Court remained pending at the time of submission of the observations. 4.3 Following his arrest, the complainant was sentenced by the Tbilisi City Court to three months of extradition detention on 3 May 2018. His appeal against this decision was rejected on 11 May 2018. On 8 June 2018, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia received an extradition request from the Russian Federation. The Tbilisi City Court extended the term of the extradition detention by three more months on 27 July 2018. The complainant’s appeal was found inadmissible. The Tbilisi City Court again extended the period of detention for an additional three months on 25 October 2018, until 30 January 2019. 4.4 On 29 October 2018, the Tbilisi City Court authorized the complainant’s extradition to the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the decision on 7 November 2018. On 11 January 2019, the Tbilisi City Court changed the measure of restraint from extradition detention to bail and released the complainant. 4.5 The State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible because of the complainant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, as his asylum case remains pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. The State party submits that the complainant attempted to hide this fact in his complaint. Extradition proceedings are independent from those concerning refugee status determination; the latter do not preclude judicial review of extradition proceedings but suspend the execution of the extradition until the final decision on refugee status is rendered. The Tbilisi City Court rejected the complainant’s appeal in the asylum proceedings, but that Court is not the final instance. Under article 21 (2) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, such decisions may be challenged before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. The State party underlines that this remedy is effective with reference to article 56 (a) of the Georgian Law on International Protection, which prohibits extradition or refoulement “until the Ministry makes a decision or a court judgment enters into force with regard to granting international protection”. Moreover, with reference to the Committee’s decisions in R. v. France and P.S.S. v. Canada, the complainant has not argued why domestic proceedings would be ineffective. 5 4.6 The State party further submits that the complaint is inadmissible as it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission within the meaning of article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The complainant submitted the complaint prematurely, because his case remains pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. He does not mention the asylum application nor the fact that the matter remains pending. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, applicants are under a continuous obligation to keep the Court informed of all important circumstances in pending 5 R. v. France (CAT/C/19/D/52/1996), para. 7.2; P.S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/21/D/66/1997), para. 6.2. 3