petitioner had committed crimes in Sweden. The State party is therefore of the opinion that a direct enforcement is unlikely in the petitioner's case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the principle of exhaustion of internal remedies requires the petitioner to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the elements that are totally unrelated to the allegations of torture, such as his situation in Sweden and the fact that he has married with a Swedish citizen are not within the scope of those that should be addressed in a remedy that has to be exhausted in order to meet the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 7.2 Nevertheless, the Committee has been informed that the petitioner has submitted a new application for residence permit on 6 June 2001, which may be decided, inter alia, on the grounds of a risk of torture in his country of origin. The Committee finds therefore that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. 8. The Committee consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the petitioner containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply; (c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, the petitioner and his representative. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English being the original version.] Notes 1. The State party explains that, under Swedish law, the three new