CCPR/C/123/D/2232/2013 months. On 17 January 2013, the Babushkinsky district court rejected the complaint. That decision was not appealed. The author therefore failed to exhaust the domestic remedies regarding those claims as well. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 Regarding the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author, through counsel, submits that the remedies must be effective to require exhaustion. When a person is ordered to be extradited, such an order becomes effective immediately and the author could have been removed from the Russian Federation at any time. The decision issued by the Supreme Court on 10 January 2013 became enforceable immediately after its issuance, and the author was extradited on 15 January 2013. The supervisory review procedure was therefore not available to the author as an effective remedy. 5.2 As for the assurances that the author would not be tortured if returned to Uzbekistan, he claims that they cannot serve as sufficient means to prevent the risk of torture. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s arguments under articles 9 and 14 (3) that his overall detention exceeded the one-year maximum period of detention allowed under Russian national legislation. It also notes the State party’s claims that the author failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies as he failed to appeal the decision of the Babushkinsky district court dated 17 January 2013 (see para. 4.5 above). In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the author regarding his failure to appeal that decision, the Committee considers that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies regarding his term of detention, as required by article 5 (2) (b) and finds his claims inadmissible. 6.4 The Committee has also noted the author’s claims that his extradition violated article 7 of the Covenant. It notes the author’s submission regarding the occurrence of torture in Uzbekistan. It also notes, however, that the author failed to relate the human rights situation in Uzbekistan to his personal context. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file and relying on information provided by the author, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his allegations. Accordingly, it declares his claims under article 7 inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 Regarding the author’s claims that his detention was arbitrary, the Committee notes that the second sentence of paragraph 3 of article 9 requires that the detention in custody of persons awaiting trial shall be the exception rather than the rule. The author, however, failed to make a showing that the determination by the courts of the Russian Federation, including the Supreme Court, that his detention pending extradition was lawful, was arbitrary. In the circumstances as described by the author, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate for purposes of admissibility his allegations and finds them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) 4 That the decision be transmitted to the State party and to the author.