CAT/C/37/D/288/2006 Page 6 5.2 On 6 July 2006, counsel advised the Secretariat that to her knowledge the complainant is not currently in Norway. She states that he may have been in France a while ago and it is possible that he is in France now. The complainant had called the Secretariat in March 2006, to enquire about the status of his case, and mentioned that he was then in Belgium. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the 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 and its rules of procedure. 6.2 Pursuant to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee may consider a communication from an individual who claims to be a victim of a State party's violation of a provision of the Convention, providing the individual is subject to that State's jurisdiction and the State has declared that it recognizes the Committee's competence under article 22. 6.3 The Committee notes that the complainant appears to have left Norway. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits return (refoulement) of a person by a State party to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual may be subjected to torture. In the present case, as the complainant appears to be no longer within any territory under the State party’s jurisdiction, he cannot be returned to Mauritania by the State party. Consequently, article 3 of the Convention does not apply. Consideration of the complaint having become moot, the Committee finds it inadmissible. In light of the aforementioned grounds of inadmissibility, the Committee does not need to address the State Party’s contention that the complainant’s claim under article 3 should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 6.4 Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107(b) of its revised Rules of Procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, and thus inadmissible. 7. The Committee against Torture therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant's counsel and to the State party. [Adopted in English, French, Spanish and Russian, 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.] -----