CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 State party’s observations on admissibility 4. In a note verbale dated 2 December 2013, the State party conveyed its concern about unjustified registration of the communication submitted by Mr. Selyun, whom it considered as not having exhausted all available domestic remedies in the State party, without providing any further details. The State party also indicated that the author had submitted an application for a pardon by the President of Belarus.8 Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s lack of cooperation and failure to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures 5.1 The Committee notes that the State party failed to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures by executing the author before the Committee had concluded its consideration of the communication. 5.2 The Committee recalls that article 39 (2) of the Covenant authorizes it to establish its own rules of procedure, which States parties have agreed to recognize. The Committee further observes 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 subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.9 Implicit in the adherence of a State 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 concerned. 10 It is incompatible with its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of communications and in the expression of its Views.11 5.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that, when he submitted the communication on 27 September 2013, the author informed the Committee that he had been sentenced to death and that the sentence could be carried out at any time. On 2 October 2013, the Committee transmitted to the State party a request not to carry out the death sentence while the case was under examination by the Committee. On 19 December 2013, the Committee reiterated its request. On 22 May 2014, the Committee received information that the author had been executed, despite its request for interim measures of protection. The Committee observes that it is uncontested that the execution in question took place, despite the fact that a request for interim measures of protection had been duly addressed to the State party and that this request had subsequently been reiterated. 5.4 The Committee reiterates that, 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 it acts 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 concerning the implementation of the obligations of the State party under the Covenant nugatory and 8 9 10 11 The State party provides no further information about the outcome of this pardon request. Preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol. Art. 5 (1) and (4) of the Optional Protocol. See, inter alia, communications No. 869/1999, Piandiong et al v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000, para. 5.1; Nos. 1461/2006, 1462/2006, 1476/2006 and 1477/2006, Maksudov et al. v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 16 July 2008, paras. 10.1-10.3; and No. 1906/2009, Yuzepchuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 October 2014, para. 6.2. 5