CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in case of his removal to Kyrgyzstan and, therefore, in such an event, the Russian Federation would not be in violation of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 30 March 2014, the author submits that he had presented to the Committee evidence that, on 21 August 2012, he withdrew his application to the European Court and therefore at the time of the submission of his communication the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 Regarding his claims under article 9 of the Covenant, the author reiterates that, according to the Supreme Court rulings, detention on remand should be regulated not only by article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also by articles 108 and 109 of that Code. Article 108 provides that whether an individual shall be detained on remand is decided by a judge in a court hearing with the mandatory participation of the suspect or the accused. In accordance with articles 5.48 and 31.2 of the Code, the courts of general jurisdiction review cases on their merits and issue decisions, as provided for in the Code. Article 108 does not allow for a court of another State to replace the Russian court in deciding the issue of detention on remand. In the author’s case, the initial ruling for his detention on remand had been issued by the Butyrsky Interregional Procurator’s Office, in the absence of a court order issued by a Russian court. Therefore, the Butyrsky Interregional Procurator’s Office violated the legislation in force in the Russian Federation, namely article 108, paragraph 4, of the Code. The author maintains that, since the initial ruling was unlawful, the subsequent extensions of the detention on remand were also unlawful. He further points out that the repeated appeals against the decisions to extend the detention were unsuccessful and maintains that the above shows that the appeals mechanism is not an effective remedy. 6.3 The author submits that the refusal to fully investigate the consequences of the author’s forced return to his country of origin in the framework of the refugee status determination procedure, during which he claimed that there is a real risk for his life and health because he could be subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return, violated article 7 of the Covenant. The author refers to article 10, paragraph 1, of the Federal Refugees Act, according to which “a person who applies for recognition as a refugee or who has been recognized as a refugee, or has lost the status of a refugee, or has been deprived of the status of a refugee, may not be returned against his will to the territory of the State of his nationality or his former usual residence” if he corresponds to the definition of a refugee provided in article 1 of the Act. He further refers to article 10, paragraph 4, of the Act and to a ruling of the Constitutional Court 7 stating that the application of an individual for refugee status or asylum should lead to suspension of extradition proceedings until a final decision is taken on the issue of refugee status or asylum. The author submits, however, that the Procurator’s Office issued an order for his deportation on 24 March 2012, before the deadline for appeal against the negative decision of the Federal Migration Service had expired. He further points out that the State party had violated the nonrefoulement principle in a number of cases 8 and maintains that in practice the judicial 7 8 Ruling of the plenum of the Supreme Court No. 11 of 14 June 2012. The author submits that, since October 2012, the European Court of Human Rights has found that in 12 cases rejected asylum seekers had been deported before the appeals proceeding regarding their applications had been finalized (applications Nos. 62892/12, Karimov v. Russia; 5614/13, Mamadaliyev v. Russia; 17239/13, Mamazhonov v. Russia; 20110/13, Ismailov v. Russia; 22636/13, Nizamov v. Russia; 24034/13, Khakim Dzhalalbayev v. Russia; 24334/13, Mukhamedkhodzhayev v. Russia; 24528/13, Olim Dzhalalbayev v. Russia; 34742/13, Egamberdiyev v. Russia; 42351/13, Kadirzhanov v. Russia; 47823/13, Mamashev v. Russia; and 50552/13, Rakhimov v. Russia). 7