CAT/C/55/D/642/2014 Court of Human Rights does not allow the Committee against Torture to assume that the Court’s examination included sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 5.4 The complainant maintains that he brought his complaint before the Committee in response to his arrest on 28 November 2014 by the State party’s authorities and his detention in a deportation centre, and that his extradition to the Russian Federation was imminent, and points out that those events had not occurred when the European Court of Human Rights reached its decision of inadmissibility. Furthermore, his complaint before the Committee not only refers to his imminent persecution by the Russian authorities if he is deported, but to the fact that his deportation would result in his separation from his wife and child. 5.5 The complainant refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, and submits that States parties are obliged to ensure that victims of torture obtain full and effective redress and reparation. Should he be returned to Chechnya in the Russian Federation, he would be deprived of any prospect of redress, such as rehabilitation or a guarantee of non-repetition, which are currently available to him in Sweden. Moreover, in the Russian Federation, there is no independent and effective complaint mechanism, not even the judiciary, with which he could lodge a complaint about the violations he suffered prior to his departure. Therefore, he would have no realistic prospect of obtaining redress and reparation. He also points out that his health is extremely poor and that he still needs complex surgery and probably long-term medical treatment, which would not be available to him in Chechnya in the Russian Federation. State party’s additional submissions on admissibility 6.1 On 26 May 2015, the State party provided additional submissions on admissibility. As to the facts of the case, it clarified that it has not received an extradition request concerning the complainant from the Russian Federation. Its migration authorities decided on the expulsion of the complainant to his country of origin. In order to enforce the expulsion order, he was detained, not arrested, on 28 November 2014. On 3 December 2014, he was released from detention. 6.2 Nothing substantial has changed in the light of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the complainant’s case. The State party maintains that his application before the European Court and his complaint before the Committee raised the same matter, namely whether the decision of its authorities to expel him to the Russian Federation would put him at serious risk of torture. Hence his complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. Complainant’s additional submissions on admissibility 7. On 16 June 2015, the complainant confirmed that there was no extradition request against him and that he had mistakenly used the wrong terminology when referring to his arrest. He also reiterated that the European Court of Human Rights was not able to rule on the inhuman suffering and distress he suffered as a result of the imminent risk of being removed to the Russian Federation, where he would allegedly risk being subjected to torture and his life would be in danger. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6