CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 2.12 On 22 August 2014, the complainant applied for interim measures to the European Court of Human Rights. On 27 August 2014, the Court rejected his request.1 In this connection, the complainant states that his application to the Court was rejected as inadmissible without a reason, and that his case has therefore not been examined by any international court of settlement. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that by deporting him to Bangladesh, the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention. Owing to his involvement in Jamaat-e-Islami, which is prohibited from participating in elections in Bangladesh, he fears persecution by his political opponents there. He asserts that his opponents have already subjected him to torture once by beating, stabbing and burning him with cigarettes, resulting in his hospitalization. He argues that because of widespread corruption in Bangladesh, he cannot rely on the authorities for protection, because both the police and other authorities will be used as a tool against him. The complainant also maintains that nothing supports the statement of the Swedish authorities that the threat against his life would have diminished after eight years. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 27 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. As to admissibility, the State party refers to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention and observes that it follows from the complainant’s submissions that he has previously lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights, in which he also made claims about the alleged risk he would be subjected to if returned to Bangladesh. Thus, his application before the Court and his complaint before the Committee refer to the same parties, same facts and the same substantive rights, i.e. the same matter.2 4.2 Contrary to the complainant’s view, the European Court of Human Rights has examined the complaint within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. According to the decision of the Court, the application was inadmissible as his complaint, in the light of the material on file, did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights or its protocols. Thus, the State party holds that the wording of the decision by the Court strongly indicates that the complainant’s application was declared inadmissible for reasons related to the substance of his application, rather than on purely procedural grounds. Accordingly, the State party considers that the Court has examined the complainant’s application within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention3 and therefore the present complaint is inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (5) (a).4 1 2 3 4 4 The case file contains a copy of the decision of the Court of 27 August 2014. In the decision, the Court states, inter alia, the following: “In addition, in the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court …, sitting in a singlejudge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared your application inadmissible”. The State party refers to communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 6.1 and 6.2, and 140/1999, A.G. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2000, paras. 6.2 and 7. The State party refers to Human Rights Committee communications No. 989/2001, Kollar v. Austria, decision on admissibility adopted on 30 July 2003, para. 8.4, and No. 584/1994, Valentijn v. France, decision on admissibility adopted on 22 July 1996, para. 5.2. The State party refers to A.G. v. Sweden, paras. 6.2 and 7, and A.R.A. v. Sweden, paras. 6.1 and 6.2.