CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 7.4 On 10 February 2020, the counsel added that in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Savran v. Denmark, the decision to deport the applicant constituted a breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.5 The counsel believes that in the present case, the deportation of the complainant constitutes a similar violation. 7.5 The counsel recalls that in its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, the Committee concluded that the State party had violated article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention, including as a result of the authorities’ refusal to order a medical examination for past torture. In the context of the present communication, the authorities have again denied the complainant a medical examination, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant’s deportation in spite of the Committee’s request for interim measures also constitutes also a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure6 8.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures under rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure by States parties to respect the Committee’s requests for interim measures, in particular through such irreparable action as extradition of an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 8.2 The Committee recalls that the non-refoulement principle codified in article 3 of the Convention is absolute. The Committee observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. The Committee considers that by failing to respect the request for interim measures transmitted on 28 April 2016 and deporting the complainant to Turkey, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. 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 has ascertained that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Accordingly, it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention from examining the communication. 9.2 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the communication. 9.3 The Committee notes that the complainant claimed that his deportation to Turkey would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Committee observes that this claim was the object of consideration by the Committee in the framework of communication No. 580/2014, concerning which the Committee adopted its decision concluding that by deporting the complainant to Turkey, the State party would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 5 6 10 Application No. 57467/15, Judgment, 1 October 2019 (referral to the Grand Chamber on 27 January 2020). For a similar approach, see, inter alia, R.S. et al. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/482/2011), para. 7; Tursunov v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/54/D/538/2013), paras. 7.1–7.2; X v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/54/D/542/2013), paras. 9.1–9.2; and H.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/68/D/568/2013), paras. 9.1–9.3.