CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 5.6 The complainant further complains that his rights under article 16 of the Convention had been violated by the State party. State party’s further observations on admissibility and on the merits 6.1 On 3 August 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint and reiterated the information provided in its observations on admissibility, notably that substantially the same application had been submitted by the same complainant to the European Court of Human Rights, in which he also requested the order of an interim measure not to be extradited to the United States (see para 4.1 above). The State party noted the decision of the Committee not to consider the issue of admissibility separately from the merits, presumably on the basis that the decision delivered by the European Court of Human Rights is of a procedural nature and not a decision on the merits. The State party does not contest that a mere procedural decision by another international body may not prevent a complaint from being declared admissible by the Committee. Nevertheless, it argues that a decision on the issue of admissibility by the Court in no way suggests that the presented case has not been examined on the merits. The State party maintains that the Court may declare an application inadmissible on the basis of it being manifestly illfounded even in cases where a complaint is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and all formal/procedural criteria have been met. Such a decision necessarily presupposes an examination on the merits of the case even according to the Court’s own interpretation. Given that none of the documents issued by the Registrar of the Court indicates the specific reason for the inadmissibility decision, the State party observes that it cannot be excluded that it was due to a decision on the merits (i.e. that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded). The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, 9 in which it declared the complaint inadmissible on the basis of an inadmissibility decision of the Court. The State party concludes that the complaint should be dismissed under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 6.2 Regarding the allegations of past torture, the State party argues that the complainant failed to present a prima facie case since the application lacks the minimum of substantiation and is manifestly unfounded. 6.3 As concerns the complaint under article 16 of the Convention, the State party challenges the applicability of the invoked provision. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, claiming that the obligation of a State party to refrain from returning a person to another State is only applicable if the person is in danger of being subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. It notes that article 3 does not contain a reference to “other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, as contained in article 16, nor does article 16 contain reference to article 3. 6.4 As to the allegations related to the potential infringements of fair trial rights in the United States, the State party submits that such a complaint falls outside the scope of the Convention and, accordingly, should be declared inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 6.5 The State party further maintains that the Office of Immigration and Nationality and the judicial appellate bodies found that the complainant would not be personally at risk of being subjected to torture once returned to the United States since the recipient State meets the criteria of a safe third country. The State party asserts that its authorities have examined the country profile of the United States focusing in particular on prison conditions, the 9 See in particular A.A. v. Azerbaijan (note 7 above). 7