CAT/C/62/D/722/2015 and there is no reason why he should have been afforded protection against deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 7.2 The State party submits that the complainant was able to appear in person before the Oslo district court and present his claims. All arguments and evidence submitted to the Committee were also heard by the domestic authorities. The fact that the complainant did not appeal the decision of 26 July 2016 to the Court of Appeal demonstrates that the author did not exhaust the available domestic remedies. The State party therefore requests the Committee to lift the interim measures and dismiss the complaint as inadmissible. If the Committee does not “adhere to this request”, the State party has decided, “after careful consideration”, not to accept the Committee’s invitation to implement interim measures. 7.3 On 16 March 2017, the State party made an additional submission, in which it informed the Committee that it regretted that it had decided not to accept the State party’s request to decide on admissibility separately from the merits of the complaint. The State party also informed the Committee that the complainant “was removed” from Norway to the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 28 September 2016 and that he was accompanied by representatives of the National Police Immigration Service on the flight. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case, the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint, based on the assertion that the complainant failed to appeal the decision of the Oslo district court of 26 July 2016. The complainant claims that he is not well-versed in the Norwegian legal system and was not provided with free legal assistance. The complainant further claims that the requirements regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies do not apply if those remedies are unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The records submitted by the parties indicate that the complainant was represented during the hearings at the Oslo district court. The complainant does not indicate, however, whether he could have continued being represented by the same lawyer on appeal, or in the alternative, the steps he has taken to secure new legal assistance or free legal aid, and that the further appeal of the decision of the Oslo district court to the Court of Appeal would not have brought an effective relief. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the requirements under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 8