CAT/C/38/D/305/2006 Page 4 State party’s observations on admissibility and the author’s comments thereon 4.1 On 9 November 2006, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint. It submits that the complaint is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, as the same complaint is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The application (8594/04) was lodged before the ECHR on 24 February 2004, even though domestic remedies were not exhausted until 31 May 2006. On 9 August 2006, the State party was notified of the application in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules of the Court (Urgent Notification of an Application). At the same time, the State party was requested to reply to a question posed by the Court. On 20 October 2006, the State party submitted a written statement, in accordance with the Court’s request3. The State party notes that the ECHR did not request interim measures of protection regarding the expulsion order. The State party submits that as an application was pending before the ECHR when the present complaint was submitted to the Committee, the current complaint is inadmissible4. 4.2 In the event that the Committee does not find the complaint inadmissible for the abovementioned reason, the State party submits that the communication should be considered inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded, under article 22 paragraph 2 of the Convention and 107 (a) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure and requests the opportunity to elaborate in this argument at a later date. 5. On 30 November 2007, the author responded to the State party’s submission, inter alia, reiterating his previous claims. He confirmed the State party’s information on his application to the ECHR but stated that his legal representative took this initiative while he (the complainant) was in hospital and that after several years the case has still not been considered by the Court5. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. It recalls that it shall not consider any communications from an individual under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, 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 recalls its jurisprudence that the European Court of Human Rights constitutes an examination by such a procedure. 6.2 The Committee considers that a communication has been, and is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the procedure relates/related to the "same matter" within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 3 The State party has provided copies of the application to the ECHR, a letter to the Court from counsel for the complainant dated 29 July 2006 and the ECHR’s letter of 9 August 2006, to the State party, to demonstrate that the two complaints concern the same matter. 4 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, A.G. v. Sweden, Complaint no. 140/1999, paras. 6.2 and 7. 5 Following inquiries made by the Secretariat with one of the registrars of the ECHR, it was confirmed on 5 March 2003, that this case is still pending before the Court.