CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 9.6 As to the complainant’s situation in Uzbekistan, the State party explains that Uzbekistan is a party to the basic international human rights instruments, in particular the Universal Declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. Criminal prosecutions there are conducted in accordance with national law and in light of the Uzbekistan’s international obligations. On this basis, and on the basis of the Minsk Convention, the complainants have been returned to Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan provided guarantees regarding the respect of the basic rights and freedoms of the detainees, and that the latter would not be subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 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 10.1 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 that provision, in particular through such irreparable action as extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention.19 10.2 The Committee observes that any State party which made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making this declaration, States parties implicitly undertook 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 24 December 2010, 31 December 2010 and 21 January 2011 and reiterated on 6 May 2011 and 9 June 2011, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention because it prevented the Committee from fully examining a complaint relating to a violation of the Convention, rendering the action by the Committee futile and its findings without effect. Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, first, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.2 The Committee has noted that the State party initially challenged the admissibility of the communication, arguing that 19 complainants failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, however in their observations on the merits, the State party submitted that the cassation appeals of 28 complainants had been rejected and thus the commission’s negative decision on their request for refugee status became final. The State party also noted that the decision of the General Prosecutor to extradite the complainants had become final. The Committee therefore notes that, at the moment of consideration of the present communication, it is uncontested that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 19 See communication No. 195/2002, Brada v. France, decision of 17 May 2005, paras. 6.1 and 6.2; 11