CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 refugee status of the Directorate of Migration Police of the Department of Internal Affairs of West Kazakhstan District to deny refugee status to the complainant’s brother was not mandatory for implementation, that the final decision would be taken by the migration authority and, accordingly, that the appeal was premature. 9.2 The complainant further submits that, on 11 May 2012, the Directorate of Migration Police of the Department of Internal Affairs of West Kazakhstan District adopted decision No. 1 refusing to grant refugee status to his brother on the same grounds as the Commission. 9.3 On 17 May 2012, the complainant’s brother appealed the 27 March 2012 decision of Court No. 2 of Uralsk City and the 7 May 2012 decision of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court. On 31 May 2012, the Cassation Panel of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court rejected the appeal, stating again that the decision of the Commission on the implementation of the procedure for granting, extending, withdrawing and terminating refugee status of the Directorate of Migration Police of the Department of Internal Affairs of West Kazakhstan District to deny refugee status to the complainant’s brother was not “mandatory for implementation” and that the decision of the Directorate of Migration Police of the Department of Internal Affairs had not been appealed separately. At the time of the submission, the complainant’s brother’s lawyers were preparing an appeal against the 11 May 2012 decision of the Directorate of Migration Police of the Department of Internal Affairs. 9.4 The complainant reiterates that the above appeals have no prospect of succeeding, because the Migration Police decision is based on the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the refugee law and the courts have already reviewed and considered those grounds when reviewing the decision of the Commission (see para 7.4 above). The complainant further alleges irregularities in the State party’s implementation of the domestic refugee status determination procedure. 9.5 Regarding the merits of the communication, the complainant reiterates that his brother’s extradition to Uzbekistan would lead to a violation by the State party of his brother’s rights under article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not 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. 10.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that his brother’s rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Convention have been violated, but observes that he does not provide any elaboration or substantiation of those allegations. Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, that the above allegations have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 10.3 With regard to the complainant’s allegation that his brother’s extradition to Uzbekistan would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently elaborated the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. 9