CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 10.3 The Committee recalls15 its consistent jurisprudence that it shall not consider any complaint from an individual under article 22 (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 considers that a complaint 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 (5) (a), which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights.16 10.4 The Committee observes that the present complaint raises claims under article 3 of the Convention mainly in relation to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to the United States. It further observes that, in his comments concerning the State party’s observations as to the admissibility, the complainant confirmed that he had also applied to the European Court of Human Rights and had also requested that his deportation to the United States be suspended. Accordingly, in the light of the information contained in the case file, the Committee concludes that complainant’s application submitted to the European Court on 6 November 2014 concerned the same person, was based on the same facts and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present complaint. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant’s application to the European Court was already being examined by that international procedure in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention and, accordingly, concludes that the present communication is inadmissible in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 11. Regarding the matter of lack of compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, the Committee decides that the facts before it constitute a breach by the State party of article 22 of the Convention. 12. The State party is under the obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 15 16 12 See, for example, communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, para. 6.1; and No. 642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 7 August 2015, para. 8.3. See, for example, A.A. v. Azerbaijan (note 7 above), paras. 6.8; and communications No. 479/2011, E.E. v. the Russian Federation, inadmissibility decision adopted on 23 May 2013, para. 8.4; No.642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, inadmissibility decision adopted on 7 August 2015, para. 8.3 and No. 643/2014, U v. Sweden, inadmissibility decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 6.4.