CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 naked to the mountains, where he was submerged in freezing water and beaten, in particular in the kidneys. He states that he was asked to sign a declaration stating that he had not been tortured in Switzerland, that no agents of the United States Central Intelligence Agency had participated in any interrogation in Switzerland or in the Embassy of Turkey and that he would be willing to receive a laissez-passer from the Embassy in order to be deported. He alleges that he was then taken back to the prison, where he was attacked with a taser and was obliged to have a cold shower and to listen to “satanic music”. He declares that he was threatened with being killed and that his death would be presented as a suicide. He further states that his entire body was in pain and that there was blood in his urine. He requested to see a doctor but only a nurse came, who took some urine samples but did not report the torture, even though he informed her about it. He was then placed in solitary confinement. On 1 February 2016, he was transferred to the prison located in Zurich airport. He informed the prison authorities upon arrival about the torture he had suffered and requested medical assistance, as well as the possibility to communicate with the prosecutor. On 2 February 2016, he was again placed in solitary confinement, where he stayed until 10 February 2016. He was visited only by two prison psychiatrists, who, he alleges, threatened him. He further indicates that because he has spent a long time in solitary confinement the torture marks have disappeared. He adds that his correspondence continues to be sabotaged. Finally, he claims that no action has been taken regarding his complaints about torture. 7.3 The complainant claims that on 7 March 2016 three prison guards came to his cell and, after insulting him, one of them undid his own trousers’ zip and touched his penis while uttering “provocative” words. He mentions that he denounced that event, as well as other violations to his rights44 to the prison director, but that no action was taken. On 4 and 21 April 2016, the complainant submitted additional information reiterating his previous claims. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Regarding the author’s allegations that he suffered acts of torture during the criminal proceedings (preventive detention and confession under pressure), the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that they were examined by the domestic courts during the judicial proceedings resulting in the conviction of the complainant to six years of imprisonment, and that the complainant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as he did not appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ticino dated 30 September 2010. The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that he did appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ticino, but that he never received a reply. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided any documentation or information to substantiate his allegations in that regard. The Committee therefore considers that this part of the complaint is inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 8.3 Regarding the complainant’s allegations of solitary confinement amounting to illtreatment and torture, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant 44 14 The complainant claims that the water supply in his cell was intermittently cut.