CAT/C/56/D/643/2014 that the facts as presented by him did not disclose violations of the European Convention. He reiterated that the Court declared his application inadmissible and noted the Court’s wording that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared the complainant’s application inadmissible. Accordingly, the complainant maintained that it cannot be asserted that the Court had examined his application in substance. Therefore, there are no obstacles to the Committee’s examination of the present complaint on the merits. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s objection that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention because the same matter was already examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that his application was not examined by the Court because its inadmissibility decision only stated that his application “did not disclose any appearance of violation” and that its limited reasoning does not allow the Committee to conclude that it considered the merits of the case. 6.3 The Committee recalls 4 its consistent jurisprudence that it will not consider any complaint from an individual under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee considers that a complaint has been, and is being examined, by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination of a complaint by another procedure relates or is related to the “same matter” within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a), that is, the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. 5 6.4 The Committee observes that the present complaint raises claims under article 3 of the Convention mainly in relation to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to Uzbekistan. It also observes that, in his comments concerning the State party’s observations on admissibility, the complainant confirmed that he had also applied to the European Court and had requested a stop to his deportation to Uzbekistan. Accordingly, in the light of the information contained in the case file, the Committee concludes that the application submitted by the complainant to the European Court on 26 November 2014 concerned the same person, was based on the same facts and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present complaint. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant’s application was already examined by that international procedure in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, and concludes that the present communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 4 5 See, for example, communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, para. 6.1; and No. 642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 7 August 2015, para. 8.3. See, for example, communications No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 November 2005, paras. 6.8; No. 479/2011, E.E. v. the Russian Federation, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 May 2013, para. 8.4; and No. 642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 7 August 2015, para. 8.3. 5