CAT/C/66/D/768/2016 accordance with the guarantees they have given and that prison conditions are good. The State party argues that, given the fact that the Rwandan authorities have continued to treat the complainant well since his arrival in November 2016, there is no reason to expect that such treatment will change in the future. This assertion is supported by the fact that, in the cases of others being tried for genocide under the Transfer Law, such as Jean Uwinkindi, no treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention has occurred. The State party also argues that, with regard to the remainder of the trial and any possible prison sentence, there is no reason to assume that the complainant is at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual 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 recalls its jurisprudence that a communication has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the procedure relates or 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. 19 The Committee observes that, on 8 July 2016, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared the author’s application inadmissible as the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met, without providing any explanation as to the specific reasons that had led it to reach such a finding. The Committee notes that the complainant’s application before the Court appears to refer to the same facts as those raised in the present communication. The Committee notes, however, that the Court’s decision does not set forth a reasoning for the inadmissibility finding and that it does not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court examined the complainant’s application, including whether it conducted a thorough analysis of the elements related to the merits of the case.20 The Committee therefore considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention from examining the communication. 9.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible since the complainant failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not filing a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of The Hague Court of Appeal of 5 July 2016. It notes, however, the complainant’s submission that a cassation appeal would not have been an effective remedy in his case as it would not have had suspensive effect and would not have prevented his extradition. The Committee notes that the State party has neither refuted the complainant’s claim in this regard nor provided any information that would suggest that a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court would have had suspensive effect in the complainant’s case or that he could have applied for a provisional measure to prevent his extradition pending appeal. The Committee therefore concludes that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the communication. 9.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he will not be afforded a fair trial in Rwanda. It notes that the fact that a complainant may face trial in a judicial system that does not guarantee the right to a fair trial may constitute an indication of a risk of torture to which State party authorities should give consideration in their decisions on removal of a person from their territory. 21 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party authorities examined the author’s claims in this regard and found that he was not at risk of not being afforded the right to a fair trial in Rwanda. The Committee notes that the 19 20 21 10 N.B. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/56/D/577/2013), para. 8.2. S v. Sweden (CAT/C/59/D/691/2015), para. 7.5; and Mozer v. Switzerland (CAT/C/57/D/584/2014), paras. 9.4–9.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 29 (d).