CAT/C/38/D/305/2006 Page 5 (a), that must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts, and the same substantive rights. It observes that Application No. 8594/04 was submitted to the European Court by the same complainant, is based on the same facts, and relates to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication. Having concluded that the "same matter" is being examined before the European Court, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), have not been met in the present case and that the complaint is thus inadmissible6. 6.3 The Committee against Torture consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] ----- 6 A.A. v. Azerbijan, Complaint no. 247/2004, Decision adopted on 25 November 2005; W.J. v. Austria, Complaint no. 5/1990, Decision adopted on 22 November 1990; X. v. Canada, Complaint no. 26/1995, Decision adopted on 20 November 1995; and A.G. v. Sweden, Complaint no. 140/1999, Decision adopted on 2 May 2000.