CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedures 9.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect the interim measure requested by the Committee, in particular through such irreparable action as extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 13 9.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the maximum delay to keep the complainant in extradition detention expired on 27 October 2015; that, under domestic law, on that date the complainant should either have been released or extradited; that release may have compromised the extradition procedure; and that, therefore, a decision was taken to extradite the complainant to the United States in accordance with the existing mutual assistance treaty. The Committee recalls that the non-refoulement principle codified in article 3 of the Convention is absolute. 14 The Committee refers to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. 9.3 The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted to the State party on 7 April 2015 and reiterated on two occasions, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 10.2 The Committee notes the State party’s objection that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention since the same matter was already being examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations that his application had been “rejected on procedural grounds” and therefore not examined by the European Court since its inadmissibility decision only stated that the admissibility requirements set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention had not been met and that its limited reasoning did not allow the Committee to conclude that it considered the merits of the case. The Committee further notes the complainant’s allegations that his application to the European Court had been based on article 6.3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that his mistreatments violating article 3 of the European Convention had been mentioned in his application as a background circumstance and that, therefore, the application was “different in nature”. 13 14 See communications No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, paras. 10.1 and 10.2; and No. 554/2013, X. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 3 August 2015, para. 10.1. See Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, para. 13.7; X. v. Kazakhstan, para. 10.3; and communication No. 39/1996, Paez v. Sweden, decision adopted on 28 April 1996, para. 14.5 . 11