CAT/C/34/D/233/2003** Page 18 [he] had been beaten by prison guards during transport to and from interrogation and threats from interrogatio n offices that it could affect his family if he did not tell everything about his time in Iran”. The Ambassador concluded that he could not evaluate the veracity of these statements, but did not understand the claim to be of any form of systematic, physical torture. Counsel viewed this newly-disclosed information as a clear indication that the complainant had been subjected to torture. Counsel also argued that the real reason that the complainant had been transferred to the Abu-Zaabal facility was because he had lodged a complaint of threatened torture. He also contended that the complainant was denied “real and fair possibilities” to prepare his defence and observed that the State party did not address issues arising from the complainant’s trial. 8.3 By a further letter of 4 May 2004, counsel provided a statement of the same day by Human Rights Watch entitled “Suspected Militants Unfair Trial and Torture Claim Implicate Sweden”, in which the complainant’s retrial as well as the State party’s monitoring arrangements were criticized. Counsel also provided a letter to him by a Human Rights Watch researcher purporting to confirm the contents of the unredacted first diplomatic report described above and concluding that there were credible allegations of ill-treatment. 8.4 By submission of 5 May 2004, the State party advised that it considered the Committee to be in a position to take a decision on the admissibility and, if necessary, the merits of the complaint on the basis of the Convention and the information before the Committee. Accordingly, it did not intend to make additional submissions beyond those already made on 3 May 2004. It observed in conclusion that counsel’s letter of 4 May 2004 raised, inter alia, issues falling outside the scope of the Convention. The Committee’s admissibility decision: 9.1 At its 32nd session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. The Committee ascertained, as it was required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 On the State party’s argument that the present complaint was an abuse of process which rendered it inadmissible, the Committee observed that the complaint submitted on behalf of the complainant’s wife in order to prevent her removal had necessarily been filed with dispatch, and had concerned, at least at the time of the Committee’s decision, the issue of whether at that point the circumstances were such that her removal would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In reaching the conclusion that removal of the complainant’s wife would not breach article 3, the Committee had considered the chronology of events up to the time of its decision, a necessarily wider enquiry than that at issue in the present case, which was focused upon the situation of the complainant at the time of his expulsion in December 2001. Indeed, the Committee had observed in its decision on the original complaint that it was not being presented with the issue of whether the present complainant’s removal itself breached article 3. The two complaints related to different persons, one already removed from the State party’s jurisdiction at the time of submission of the complaint and the other still within its jurisdiction pending removal. In the Committee’s view, the complaints were thus not of an essentially identical nature, and it did not consider the current complaint to be a simple re-submission of an already decided issue. While submission of the present complaint with greater dispatch would have been preferable, the Committee considered that it would be inappropriate to take so strict a view that would consider the time taken in obtaining