CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 Additional comments by the complainant 12.1 On 14 April 2011 the complainant confirmed that he had filed an application requesting compensation for the incidents that had taken place after his extradition. He emphasizes that the risks taken in violation of the Convention cannot be invoked as a basis for stating that State party acted responsibly. He submits that it is thus valid to challenge the legality of the decision to extradite him to Mexico before the Committee, the sole body dealing with the matter, and argues that clearly, a suit for damages filed subsequent to the torture he endured after extradition to Mexico cannot constitute an effective remedy that would have prevented his extradition and thus cannot be considered as an available means of domestic remedy. 12.2 As for the consular follow-up, the complainant states that at the time of his extradition in August 2007 the staff at the Canadian embassy in Mexico were unaware of the content of the diplomatic assurances, as demonstrated by the evidence he submitted, in particular by e-mails. He further points out that the diplomatic assurances were not accompanied with specific measures taken on the spot likely to reduce the real risk of torture, and submits that the State party’s observations of 10 February 2011 confirm that the State party took no specific measures to try to prevent his torture. The usual consular follow-up measures were taken; no system of monitoring was put in place. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 13.1 Before considering a claim contained 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, paragraph 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. 13.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention. The Committee notes that, on 6 December 2010, the Federal Court dismissed the action brought by the complainant and that, on 10 January 2011, the complainant brought another action before that court. It also notes that the State party disputed the admissibility of the communication on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as a result of the action brought by the complainant before the Federal Court. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence16 to the effect that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the petitioner to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture in the country to which he would be sent. In this case, the application was launched on 10 January 2011 and seeks compensation for ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the complainant in Mexico. The Committee finds that this remedy was not available before the complainant was extradited and that it is highly unlikely to bring effective relief to the complainant, who claims to be a victim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee also notes that on 5 July 2007 the Supreme Court refused to allow an appeal against the order to extradite the complainant. As a result, the Committee finds that, under the circumstances, article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 16 A.R. v. Sweden, communication No. 170/2000, decision adopted on 23 November 2001, para. 7.1. 11