CAT/C/70/D/915/2019 and aid, if necessary. The State party argues that the European Court of Human Rights has considered that it will only be in rare cases that the general situation in a country is such that no weight can be attached at all to such assurances. 14 In the present case, the assurances provided must be considered reliable, given that they were issued by the central Russian authorities and are accessible to human rights monitoring bodies. They are moreover specific, and concern treatment illegal in the Russian Federation. Further, the assurances were issued by a State that is a State party to the Convention, to the European Convention on Human Rights and to other international mechanisms for combating ill-treatment. There is no proof that the complainant has ever been ill-treated in the Russian Federation. The State party’s authorities and courts thoroughly reviewed his situation and the assurances provided and concluded that there was no evidence showing substantial grounds to believe that the complainant would face torture or ill-treatment if extradited to the Russian Federation. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 In his comments dated 7 and 13 November 2019, the complainant recalls that the Supreme Court upheld the decision to extradite him and that he is currently held in preextradition detention. It is thus uncontested that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. 6.2 The complainant contests that he abused his right of submission, arguing that applying for asylum with the Ministry is not an effective remedy and is thus “not a key fact” in the complaint. The asylum proceedings have not halted judicial review of the extradition process. Furthermore, he argues that he had no possibility for review of any kind of the expulsion decision due to national security concerns. Therefore, in the absence of an independent administrative review of the extradition decision, the State party has not met its procedural obligation to provide for effective, independent and impartial review required by article 3 of the Convention.15 6.3 The complainant argues that the State party expects him to have recourse to another remedy in addition to the extradition proceedings. In his view, this is contrary to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights establishing that, if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them16 and that, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy with essentially the same purpose is not required.17 Following the jurisprudence of the Court, it is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate. 18 Therefore, the State party’s observation that the complaint should be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and as an abuse of the right of submission should be dismissed. 6.4 The complainant contests the State party’s submission that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, as well as the State party’s observations on the merits. The State party 14 15 16 17 18 6 European Court of Human Rights, Gaforov v. Russian Federation, Application No. 25404/09, Judgment, 21 October 2010, para. 138; Sultanov v. Russia Application No. 15303/09, Judgment, 4 November 2010, para. 73. The complainant notes that the Convention against Torture does not contain a provision on effective remedies comparable to article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that, in its jurisprudence, the Committee has derived procedural guarantees from the prohibition of refoulement in article 3 of the Convention; Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003), paras. 13.6–13.7. European Court of Human Rights, Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal, Application No. 65681/01, Decision, 29 April 2004; Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 41183/02, Decision, 15 November 2005; Karakó v. Hungary, Application No. 39311/05, Judgment, 28 April 2009, para. 14; Aquilina v. Malta, Application No. 25642/94, Judgment, 29 April 1999, para. 39. European Court of Human Rights, Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, Applications Nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, Judgment, 24 January 2008, para. 84; Kozacioğlu v. Turkey, Application No. 2334/03, Judgment, 19 February 2009, paras. 40 ff.; Micallef v. Malta, Application No. 17056/06, Judgment, 15 October 2009, para. 58; Lagutin and others v. Russian Federation, Applications Nos. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, Judgment, 24 April 2014, para. 75; Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania, Application No. 41720/13, Judgment, 25 June 2019, para. 177; Jasinskis v. Latvia, Application No. 45744/08, Judgment, 21 December 2010, paras. 50 and 53–54. European Court of Human Rights, O’Keeffe v. Ireland Application No. 35810/09, Judgment, 28 January 2014, paras. 110–111; Tănase v. Romania, para. 176.