87. Also at its thirty-eighth session, the Committee decided to declare inadmissible complaint No. 305/2006 (A.R.A. v. Sweden), which concerned claims under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted that the complainant had filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, which was still pending before the Court when the complainant submitted an identical complaint to the Committee. It recalled that, under article 22, paragraph 5 (a) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual 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 considered that a communication has been, and is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, if such examination relates to the “same matter”, which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights alleged to have been violated. In the case at issue, the application before the European Court was submitted by the same complainant, was based on the same facts and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the communication before the Committee. Accordingly, it concluded that the communication was inadmissible. The text of this decision is reproduced in annex VII, section B, to the present report. Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to the thirty-eighth session State party AUSTRIA Case Halimi-Nedibi Quani, 8/1991 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Yugoslav Views adopted on 18 November 1993 Issues and violations found Failure to investigate allegations of torture article 12. Interim measures granted and State party response None Remedy recommended The State party is requested to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Due date for State party response None Date of reply None State party response None Complainant’s response N/A 101