CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 in convicting the author’s son, the court took into consideration his personality and the cruelty of the murders and of the other dangerous crimes committed by him. 4.3 The State party also submits that every death penalty case is additionally reviewed by the Presidential Pardons Commission and then by the President himself. 4.4 On 21 April 2010, in response to the 30 March 2010 press release of the Committee, the State party submits that the Committee made public information regarding the case in contradiction of article 5, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol. The State party submits that it did not breach its commitments under the Covenant and the Optional Protocol thereto since capital punishment is not prohibited by international law and it is not a party to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. It further notes that it had recognized the competence of the Committee under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, but that the Committee’s “attempts to pass its rules of procedure off as the international commitments of State parties … are absolutely inadmissible”. It reiterated that it had not violated the Optional Protocol since: article 1 recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications directly from individuals who claim to be victims of a right, but not from a third party; and it had cooperated with the Committee in the spirit of good will and provided it with all the relevant information on the case. It further submits that domestic legislation obliges its courts to implement immediately verdicts that have entered into force, and that the Optional Protocol does not contain provisions obliging States parties to stop the implementation of the death penalty until the review of the convict’s complaints by the Committee is completed. It maintains that the position of the Committee that executions should be halted in such cases is not binding and has the “character of a recommendation”. It submits that the above issue can be resolved by amending the Optional Protocol. It further submits that the State party imposes and implements capital punishment in extremely rare cases and that the issue is currently being debated in its Parliament. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 July 2012, the author submits that neither an application for presidential pardon, nor the supervisory review procedure before the Supreme Court in Belarus can be considered an effective domestic remedy under the Optional Protocol. As to the presidential pardon, the author maintains that it does not represent an effective domestic remedy that needs to be exhausted before applying to the Human Rights Committee, because it is a measure of a humanitarian nature and not a legal remedy. 4 The author further submits that, according to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, the supervisory review procedure is not an effective domestic remedy that has to be exhausted, as required under the Optional Protocol, and adds that an appeal submitted under that procedure would not automatically result in the consideration of its substance. Instead a public official, usually the chair of a court, would consider the issue unilaterally and may reject the request. The author submits that this unilateral review, which does not include a public hearing, does not permit the supervisory review procedure to be treated as a remedy. 5.2 The author further submits that, although legislation provides for the possibility to file applications for supervisory review and presidential pardon, it does not regulate the length of such proceedings, nor provide for a procedure to inform the applicant of their outcome. In practice, in death penalty cases, the applicant is informed that his applications have been rejected only minutes before his execution. The outcome of such applications is 4 6 The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 6.4; No. 1132/2002, Chisanga v. Zambia, Views adopted on 18 October 2005, para. 6.3.