CAT/C/56/D/643/2014 Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal had not yet examined the new circumstances presented.1 The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that, by forcibly returning him to Uzbekistan, the State party would breach its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. His removal would expose him to persecution, torture and inhumane treatment by local authorities. In this regard, the complainant points out that the general human rights situation in Uzbekistan is such that the use of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment is widespread. 3.2 The complainant also claims that, should he be deported, he might be separated from his wife for a prolonged period of time. In addition, he claims that his health condition has been deteriorating. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By a note verbale of 2 February 2015, the State party objected to the admissibility of the complaint pursuant to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention and maintained that the same matter had already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. 4.2 The State party points out that the complainant lodged an application before the European Court, in which he noted the alleged risk he would be subjected to if returned to Uzbekistan. It maintains that his application before the Court and his complaint before the Committee refer to the same parties, same facts and same substantive rights. In other words, the present communication concerns the same matter as the complaint lodged by the complainant to the Court.2 4.3 The State party notes that the European Court declared his application inadmissible because it did not disclose any violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its Protocols. Against this background and contrary to the complainant’s view, the State party holds that the wording of the decision by the Court strongly indicates that the complainant’s application was declared inadmissible for reasons related to the substance of his application, rather than on purely procedural grounds. Accordingly, it must be considered that the Court has examined the complainant’s application within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 3 Should the Committee consider that the Court’s decision is unclear, the State party invites it to contact the Court in order to clarify the issue. 4.4 Should the Committee consider the complaint to be admissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the State party maintains that it would like to have an opportunity to further elaborate on the question whether the communication could be considered manifestly ill-founded under rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 6 March 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He confirmed that he had applied to the European Court of Human Rights and had requested a stop to his deportation; however, on 27 November 2014, the Court found 1 2 3 4 See para. 2.5 above. The State party refers to communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 6.1-6.2; and 140/1999, A.G. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2000, paras. 6.2 and 7. The State party refers to Human Rights Committee, communications No. 989/2001, Kollar v. Austria, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 July 2003, para. 8.4; and No. 584/1994, Valentijn v. France, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 1996, para. 5.2.