CAT/C/53/D/511/2012 determination of the proper interpretation of article 14, which is regarded as providing victims with rights which may not exist as a matter of customary international law. 34 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party does not contest that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae under article 22 of the Convention because the communication requires the Committee to consider whether China itself has violated article 14 by allegedly not providing an effective remedy to the complainant, and China has not made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that article 14 applies irrespective of the places of the acts of torture; and that, because the Australian courts have not declined jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens, the State party is required to afford an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, in which it considers that “the application of article 14 is not limited to victims who were harmed in the territory of the State party or by or against nationals of the State party” and that “article 14 requires States parties to ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment are able to access remedy and obtain redress”.35 However, the Committee observes that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the State party is unable to establish jurisdiction over officials of another State for alleged acts committed outside the State party’s territory. 36 Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the case under review, the complainant’s claim to redress and compensation is inadmissible. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 34 35 36 12 The complainant cites, inter alia, International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgments, I.C.J. Reports 2012. General comment No. 3, para. 22. See communication No. 176/2000, Roitman Rosenmann v. Spain, inadmissibility decision of 30 April 2002, para. 6.6.