CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 12. On 29 July 2011, the complainant confirmed the information previously submitted by his parents regarding his placement in psychiatric care and added that on 18 July 2011 he was transferred without notice back to the same remand prison, where he was held in the same inhuman conditions previously described. He notes that, 25 days after his transfer to the psychiatric hospital, he was finally able to meet with his Russian attorney. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to accede to the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure 13.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure (former rule 108), 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. 15 13.2 The Committee observes that any State party that 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. The Committee notes that the request for interim measures was transmitted to the State party on 13 August 2010 and reiterated on 20 October 2010, 4 January 2011 and 11 May 2011. The Committee observes that by failing to respect this request, the State party violated 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, and prevented it from taking a decision which would effectively prevent the complainant’s extradition, should the Committee find a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Consideration of admissibility 14.1 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. 14.2 The Committee has noted that the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication, arguing that the complainant failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as he failed to appeal the Prime Minister’s decision to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court for abuse of power. It also notes the State party’s contention that the complainant did not mention before the Crown Prosecutor of the Tangiers First Instance Court or the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court the likelihood that he would be subjected to torture or inhumane treatment if he were extradited to the Russian Federation. The Committee considers relevant the complainant’s argument that he has never been officially served with the final decision by the Minister of Justice to authorize the extradition. It also notes the complainant’s contention that his allegation of a 15 12 See communication No. 195/2002, Brada v. France, decision adopted on 17 May 2005, paras. 6.1 and 6.2.