(f) Inadmissibility ratione temporis 643. As at previous sessions, the Committee was faced with communications concerning events that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State concerned. The criterion of admissibility has been whether the events have had continued effects which themselves constitute violations of the Covenant after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. 644. In case No. 457/1991 (A.I.E. v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), the author claimed to have been subjected to torture by Libyan authorities between 17 April and 15 June 1989/ prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for that country. In declaring the communication inadmissible, the Committee observed! "With regard to the application of the Optional Protocol to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Committee recalls that it entered into force on 16 August 1989. It observes that the Optional Protocol cannot be applied retroactively and concludes that the Committee is precluded ratione temporis from examining acts said to have occurred between 17 April and 15 June 1989, unless these acts continued or had effects after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, constituting in themselves a violation of the Covenant." (annex X, sect. AA, para. 4.2) 645. In case Wo. 410/1990 {Csaba Parkanyi v. Hungary), part of the communication related to pretrial detention that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Hungary. The Committee noted that: "the State party has not objected to the competence of the Committee to consider this claim, although it relates to events that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Hungary, albeit after the entry into force of the Covenant, in these specific circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the case." (annex IX, sect. Q, para. 8.2) (g) Interim measures under rule 86 646. The authors of a number of cases currently before the Committee are convicted persons who have been sentenced to death and are awaiting execution. These authors claim to be innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted and further allege that they were denied a fair hearing. In view of the urgency of the communications, the Committee has requested the States parties concerned, under rule 86 of the Committee's rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentences while the cases are under consideration. Stays of execution have specifically been granted in this connection. Ho execution has taken place in these circumstances. 647. In another case, in which the author claimed to be a victim of an unfair trial, the State party was requested to postpone the author's imprisonment in view of his precarious state of health. The communication is currently under consideration. -153-