the State party, pursuant to rule 86 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, to defer the author’s extradition until the Committee had had an opportunity to consider the admissibility of the issues placed before it. would be exposed to “the death row phenomenon”, i.e. years of detention under harsh conditions, awaiting execution. The State party’s observations 4. On 30 April 1992, the State party informed the Committee of the author’s situation in regard to remedies which are either currently being pursued by him before Canadian courts or which are still available for him to pursue. It indicates that the Court Of Appeal of Quebec is seized of the matter, and that, if it rendered a decision unfavourable to the author, he could appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the event of an unfavourable decision there, he could still “petition the Minister of Justice to seek assurances under the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States that if surrendered, the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out. Counsel for K. C. has in fact indicated that, once remedies before the courts have been exhausted, he will be making representations to the Minister regarding assurances. A review of the Minister’s decision is available in the Superior Court of Quebec on habeas corpus with appeals again to the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada or on application to the Federal Court Trial Division with appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently, there is no basis for [K. C.]’s complaint as he has not exhausted all remedies available in Canada and has several opportunities to further contest his extradition.” 5.2 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.3 Article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering a communication if the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. In the light of the information provided by the State party, the Committee concludes that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 86 of the rules of procedure is set aside; (c) That, in accordance with rule 92, paragraph 2, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the author may, after exhausting local remedies, bring the issue again before the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 On 12 March 1992 the Special Rapporteur on New Communications requested _______________ 6