CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 inhuman treatment or punishment upon return. Moreover, the information received indicates that the Kyrgyz authorities do not treat the above-mentioned categories of persons in a biased manner. Additional comments by the parties 7.1 On 3 February 2016, the author’s counsel reported that the author had been extradited to Kyrgyzstan through Kazakhstan, most likely on 2 September 2013. While the author had also sought asylum in Kazakhstan, his application was rejected on 13 November 2013. Thereafter, the counsel had lost contact with the author and his wife. 7.2 On 10 February 2016, the State party noted that the Deputy-Prosecutor General’s decision to satisfy the request concerning the author’s extradition had been upheld by the Moscow Regional Court on 11 July 2012 and by the Supreme Court on 22 August 2012, in the context of cassation proceedings. Accordingly, the author was handed over to Kyrgyz law enforcement authorities on 27 September 2013. The State party further reports that on 5 November 2014 the Court of Alamudinsky District, in Kyrgyzstan, terminated the criminal proceedings that had been against the author because the alleged victim decided to drop the charges. The State party is not in the possession of any other information concerning the author or his whereabouts. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Non-respect of the Committee’s request for interim measures 8.1 The Committee notes that the State party extradited the author although his communication had been registered under the Optional Protocol and although an application for interim measures of protection had been addressed to the State party with a request not to extradite the author pending the examination of his case by the Committee. The Committee recalls6 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 claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant (preamble and art. 1 of the Optional Protocol). Implicit in a State’s adherence 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 thereof, to forward its views to the State party and to the individual (art. 5 (1) and (4)).7 8.2 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 its action or inaction serves 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 nugatory and futile. In the present communication, the author alleges that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant would be violated should he be extradited to Kyrgyzstan. On 24 August 2012, the Committee requested the State party not to extradite the author to Kyrgyzstan pending consideration of his communication. Despite that, the State party proceeded with the 6 7 See communication No. 869/1999, Piandiong at al. v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000. See communications No. 1910/2009, Zhuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 30 October 2013, para. 6.2; Nos. 1461/2006, 1462/2006, 1476/2006 and 1477/2006, Maksudov et al v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 16 July 2008, at para. 10.1; No. 2192/2012, N.S. v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 27 March 2015, para. 8.1. 9