CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 15 April 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint, noting that the complainant has submitted an application with the European Court of Human Rights also requesting the order of an interim measure under article 39 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) not to be extradited to the United States.6 It submits a copy of the above-mentioned application/request for interim measures to the European Court, dated 6 November 2014, noting that it contains the same facts almost word-for-word and refers to the same substantive rights. The State party maintains that the procedure before the European Court is related to the “same matter” as prescribed by article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, considering that the application was submitted by the same complainant, was based on the same facts and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication. The State party refers to the Committee’s previous decision,7 in which it ruled that, in the even where an application has been declared inadmissible before the European Court, it shall be regarded as a complaint that has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the purposes of article 22 (5) (a). 4.2 The State party submits that the communication should be considered inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (a) and (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure for being manifestly unfounded as regards the alleged risk of torture and for being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention as regards the alleged infringement of fair trial rights. 4.3 On 30 April 2015, the State party reiterated its observations on the admissibility and informed the Committee that the extradition of the complainant to the United States had been suspended in accordance with the Committee’s request for interim measures; however, given the nature of the case, it urged the Committee to issue its decision in the near future. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 20, 22, 23 and 29 April 2015, the complainant challenged the State party’s argument that an application had been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on the “same matter”. He submits that the basis of the application to the European Court was the fact that he risked not having a fair trial since the United States uses a so-called pre-sentence report in judicial proceedings, and that that in itself would violate the doctrine of speciality, which is a fundamental aspect of the extradition treaty between the United States and Hungary. His mistreatment was mentioned as a background circumstance, but the essence of the application related to the fairness of his trial as being in contradiction with article 6.3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The complainant 6 7 The complainant’s application to the European Court of Human Rights was registered under No. 71302/14. It concerned his pending extradition from Hungary to the United States, alleging that it would entail violations of articles 3, 6, 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He further requested the European Court to prevent his extradition by means of an interim measure. On 10 November 2014, after examining the request, the acting president of the Court’s filtering section decided not to indicate to the Government of Hungary the interim measure sought. Subsequently, the European Court, sitting in a single-judge formation from 8 to 22 January 2015, decided to declare the application inadmissible because, in the light of all the material in its possession and insofar as the subject of the complaint were within its competence, the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention had not been met. See communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 25 November 2005. 5