CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 light of all the above, the State party reiterates that the present complaint is inadmissible and without merit. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, as the same matter has already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s observation that his application to the Court was rejected as inadmissible without a reason and that its limited reasoning does not allow the Committee against Torture to conclude that the Court gave sufficient consideration to the merits of the case. 7.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication 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.16 The Committee considers that a complaint has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the other procedure related or relates 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.17 7.4 The Committee observes that the present complaint raises claims under article 3 of the Convention, relating to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to Bangladesh. Accordingly, in the light of the information contained on file, the Committee concludes that complainant’s application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 22 August 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, i.e. risk of torture upon return to Bangladesh. The Committee therefore proceeds to examine whether his application was examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 7.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that the European Court of Human Rights declared the complainant’s application inadmissible as it considered that “the material in its possession … did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols”. In those circumstances, the Committee considers that the decision of the Court was not solely based on procedural issues, but on reasons that indicate a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 18 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the claims raised by the complainant regarding the alleged risk he would face if deported to Bangladesh are inadmissible in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 16 17 18 See, for example, A.R.A. v. Sweden, para. 6.1, and communication No. 642/2014, M.T. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 7 August 2015, para 8.3. See, for example, communication No. 479/2011, E.E. v. Russian Federation, decision adopted on 24 May 2013, para. 8.4, and M.T. v. Sweden, para 8.3. See, for example, communication No. 479/2011, E.E. v. Russian Federation, paras. 8.2-8.4 and M.T. v. Sweden, paras 8.4 and 8.5. 13