CCPR/C/123/D/2768/2016 was under an imminent threat of removal”.46 The author therefore maintains her claim that the Hungarian authorities failed to fulfil their obligation to provide effective guarantees to protect her against arbitrary removal to Serbia resulting in a potential violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant. Her complaint essentially concerns the shortcomings and serious procedural deficiencies of the administrative and judicial procedure leading to the final and enforceable decision on her return to Serbia. 7.4 Finally, the author maintains her complaint under article 13 of the Covenant, reiterating that her right to submit reasons against her expulsion and her right to be represented were breached during the asylum procedure. The fact that she was not in the end returned to Serbia has no bearing on the breach of this concrete right. State party’s additional observations 8.1 On 7 August 2017, the State party submitted additional observations. It reiterates its arguments and contests the author’s statement that the positive evaluation of her second asylum application was the result of the interim measures ordered by the Committee. The authorities examined once more the events that took place in Serbia, despite some inconsistencies, and considered that owing to the humanitarian and human rights aspects of the case, it would not have been appropriate to have the author’s case suspended, as requested by her legal representative, until a final decision was taken by the Committee. It was therefore in the author’s best interest to reverse the previous decision, resume the procedure and obtain a new final decision. 8.2 The decision of inadmissibility in the first set of asylum proceedings was delivered on the basis of all the information available, without any procedural errors or violations of rights and in compliance with legal requirements, a fact that has also been confirmed by the competent court which carried out the review procedure. Additional comments from the author 9.1 On 29 August 2017, the author reiterated her previous submissions and welcomed the State party’s decision to re-examine her case following the interim measures granted by the Committee, although only after she had introduced her second asylum request on 27 June 2016. She was not invited to make a second request for asylum by the Office of Immigration and Nationality, hence she claims that the risk of exposure to inhuman and degrading treatment has not been remedied by the Office of Immigration and Nationality, in breach of article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant. Therefore, the only reason for having her second application examined on the merits were the interim measures ordered by the Committee, not the actions of the Hungarian authorities. 9.2 The fact that she was not in the end returned to Serbia has no bearing on the breach of her right to submit reasons against her expulsion and to be represented before the competent authority, in violation of article 13 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.3 The Committee notes the author’s statement that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in 46 See European Court of Human Rights, Kebe and others v. Ukraine, Case No. 12552/12, Judgment, 12 January 2017, para. 89. 13