CAT/C/62/D/712/2015 effective relief to the complainant, and therefore considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present complaint. 6.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that she was subjected to torture when she was held in a car for several hours, that she was kidnapped by Federal Security Service agents and taken to the offices of the investigation department, received death threats and was later forcibly placed in a psychiatric institution. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant’s allegations were examined by the domestic courts during the judicial proceedings that resulted in the conviction and fining of the complainant and were also the subject of a separate investigation carried out by the military investigation unit of the regional garrison, which did not uncover any violations. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided any documentation to substantiate her allegations in that regard. Documents submitted to the Committee show that the complainant first made allegations of torture in December 2012, when the investigation was nearing its end, while the alleged torture itself took place on 3 and 4 July 2012. Although the complainant claims that she complained about the torture to the relevant authorities on 8 July 2012, she did not provide proof of any such complaints. In these circumstances and in the absence of any further relevant information, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to sufficiently substantiate her claims for the purpose of admissibility. 6.6 The Committee against Torture therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 8