CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 investigation (decision of non-consideration) because the complainant’s allegations were contradictory and not credible. That decision was notified to the complainant on 4 May 2015, who did not appeal. Therefore, the State party considers that the complainant did not exhaust all available domestic remedies. 4.9 Regarding the complainant’s removal to Turkey, the State party submits that the Federal Migration Office revoked the complainant’s residence permit on 27 November 2013.17 The State party submits that the complainant failed to appeal that decision to the State Council of Ticino even though the complainant states that he did so on 10 December 2014. The State Council never received such an appeal, 18 despite having given the complainant additional deadlines for submitting it. Therefore, the State Council issued a decision of non-consideration on 2 September 2014. The complainant did not appeal that decision to the Federal Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the State Secretariat for Migration decided on 4 December 2014 to ban the complainant’s entry to Switzerland.19 That decision, which could have been appealed within 30 days, was notified to the complainant on 9 December 2014; the complainant did not appeal the decision. Instead, he requested access to his file on 7 January 2015. On 2 February 2015, the complainant submitted an appeal to the Federal Administrative Tribunal that was rejected on 23 February 2015 because it was presented after the deadline. The State party therefore considers that domestic remedies were not exhausted. 4.10 The State party also submits that the complainant’s allegations under article 9 of the Convention are inadmissible ratione materiae because that article requires cooperation between States under circumstances that are not present in the present case. 4.11 In view of the foregoing, the State party requests the Committee: (a) to lift the interim measures; (b) to declare the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; and (c) to declare the allegations related to article 9 of the Convention inadmissible ratione materiae. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 July, 11 August and 5 October 2015, the complainant submitted information to the Committee on the “sabotage” of his correspondence by the Swiss authorities. He asserts that his signature has been forged several times to show that he received certified correspondence,20 which he never did, including court notifications; that the envelopes he sent were filled with blank pages instead of his actual complaints; and that he received envelopes containing blank papers or incomplete correspondence. He states that he has filed complaints regarding the acts of “sabotage” but that the authorities have taken no action. 21 Taking into account the alleged sabotage, he fears that he can be deported to Turkey before the Committee issues a decision on his case. The complainant also indicates that he was 17 18 19 20 21 The State party has provided the text of the decision, in Italian only. On 23 March 2012, the Federal Migration Office revoked the complainant’s residence permit. The decision was appealed before the Federal Administrative Tribunal, which partially rejected it and requested the Office to present a report on the risks the complainant would be exposed to if returned to Turkey. In that report, which was issued on 17 October 2013, the Office indicated that the complainant was not the object of a search by the Turkish authorities and that he would not currently be exposed to any risk. Following the issuance of the report, the Office decided to definitely cancel the complainant’s residence permit on 27 November 2013. The State Council received only a few blank pages. The State party has provided the text of the decision, in Italian only. The complainant has provided three delivery receipts and alleged that the signature that appears on them is not his. No further information has been provided. 9