CAT/C/49/D/346/2008 6.3 The complainant also rejects the State party’s argument that his counsel had not claimed that he ran a risk of torture even though he had done so in a previous extradition case involving the Russian Federation. On the contrary, his counsel had argued before the Court of Appeal that the complaint did in fact run such a risk. This fact had also been raised in the complaint submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee notes that on 25 June 2008, the complainant filed a complaint (registration number 30114/08) with the European Court of Human Rights and that this complaint was based on the same grounds (extradition to Brazil contrary to the principle of nonrefoulement). However, the complaint had been rejected without an examination of the merits. The Committee is of the opinion that, under these circumstances, the case cannot be deemed to have been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. The Committee is consequently not precluded from considering the complaint on that basis. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the ground of failure to exhaust all domestic remedies, since the complainant did not file an application before the Supreme Court under article 90 of the Constitution for the revocation of the State’s decision to request extradition. The Committee observes that the complainant has not refuted or contested that argument. The Committee also notes that during its consideration of the fourth and fifth periodic reports submitted by Monaco under article 19 of the Convention, the State party cited the applicable procedure in this respect, stating that it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court against return (refoulement) and expulsion orders, which are administrative decisions adopted by the Minister of State. In the absence of an opposing argument by the complainant, the Committee concludes that this remedy applies mutatis mutandis to extradition decisions and that it constitutes an effective remedy so long as it has suspensive effect in practice, as mentioned by the State party in its observations on admissibility in paragraph 4.4 of this decision.9 7.3 The Committee concludes that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies and that the current complaint is therefore inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 7.4 As a result, the Committee against Torture decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 9 8 See the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Monaco to the Committee against Torture, (CAT/C/MCO/4-5), para. 13 ff. GE.13-40769