CAT/C/62/D/712/2015 5.14 The complainant further claims that, prior to the events of 3, 4 and 12 July 2012, she had been a healthy and active person and spent a lot of time working. In the wake of those events, her health has deteriorated, as can be seen from a copy of her medical history form.18 5.15 In the light of the foregoing, the complainant requests the Committee to conclude that her rights under articles 1, 2, 4, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention have been violated. 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. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party argues that the complainant has not appealed to the cassation instance of a regional court, or to the Judicial College on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and that, therefore, the complaint must be considered by the Committee as inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention. The State party further notes that, by its decision in Abramyan and Others v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the cassation review procedure constituted an effective domestic remedy. 6.3 The Committee recalls that the European Court of Human Right’s decision in Abramyan and Others v. Russia concerns the exhaustion of domestic remedies only for civil cases. On the contrary, in Kashlan v. Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights came to the conclusion that the new cassation review procedure under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2014, did not constitute an ordinary remedy within the meaning of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore did not have to be exhausted by the applicants before lodging a complaint with the Court.19 6.4 The Committee must now decide if the lodging of cassation appeals against court decisions that have entered into force constitutes effective relief as required by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that a court decision which has entered into force may be appealed against before the cassation instance of a regional court or the Judicial College on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Committee further notes that article 401 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that, upon receiving a cassation appeal, a single judge of a regional court or the Supreme Court then decides whether the cassation appeal shall be heard by the cassation instance court or rejected. The Committee notes that such a review depends on the discretionary power of a single judge. The Committee is therefore of the view that the current cassation appeal procedure is of a discretionary nature and constitutes an extraordinary remedy; therefore, the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such an appeal would provide effective relief in the circumstances of the case. The Committee considers that, since the State party has not shown whether, and in how many cases, cassation review procedures were successfully applied in cases concerning torture, the State party has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate the effectiveness of filing a cassation appeal with regional courts or with the Supreme Court concerning ill-treatment or torture. In the present circumstances, the Committee cannot conclude that the cassation appeal is likely to bring 18 19 The complainant provided a copy of her medical history form, which shows that, in February 2013, she was diagnosed with cardiovascular dystonia (a condition similar to a panic attack). See Kashlan v. Russia, application No. 60189/15, 19 April 2016, para. 29. 7