CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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 currently being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 14 6.2 The Committee further observes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant has abused the right to submit such a communication. With regard to the abuse of right raised by the State party, the Committee recalls that, in order for there to be abuse of the right to raise a matter before the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, one of the following conditions must be met: the submission of a matter to the Committee must amount to malice or a display of bad faith or intent at least to mislead, or be frivolous; or the acts or omissions referred to must have nothing to do with the Convention. 15 In the present case, it cannot be ascertained that the complaint has been submitted in bad faith or is frivolous, since the complainant complains of acts of torture and/or ill-treatment and accuses the State party of violating provisions of the Convention.16 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not abused the right to submit such a communication within the meaning of article 22 (2) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee further notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since, following the complaint lodged by the complainant’s lawyer, a criminal case was opened and registered on 6 July 2006 with the public prosecutor as case No. RMP 123.256/B.V. The Committee notes that the State party has indicated that proceedings are ongoing, but it has provided no further information or evidence that might allow the Committee to ascertain what progress has been made or to judge how effective the proceedings might be, bearing in mind that the case has remained on the docket of the public prosecution service for more than 11 years. The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, the inaction of the competent authorities has made it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective relief can be initiated and that, in any event, the domestic proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the complaint under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.4 In the absence of any obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 11 to 14 and 16 of the Convention. State party’s failure to cooperate 7. On 26 November 2015, 25 April 2016, 29 June 2016 and 30 November 2016, the State party was invited to submit its comments on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that no information has been received in this connection. It regrets the State party’s refusal to communicate any information on the merits of the complainant’s claims. The Committee recalls that the State party is obliged, pursuant to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated. 14 15 16 8 The Committee notes that the complainant’s case was brought to the attention of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and of the Special Rapporteur on torture in 2006. These extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms do not constitute procedures of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention and the examination of the complainant’s case by these procedures therefore does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. See, in this regard, Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 5.1; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 7.1. See Ben Salem v. Tunisia, para. 8.4. See, mutatis mutandis, T.M. v. Republic of Korea (CAT/C/53/D/519/2012), para. 8.3. GE.18-00819