CAT/C/59/D/691/2015 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 January 2016, the complainant submitted her comments to the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. She confirmed that she had applied to the European Court of Human Rights and had requested it to stop her deportation. She notes that the prohibition of torture is absolute and if the materials submitted in the context of her communication show that she would actually be subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran, article 22 of the Convention should be ruled out, taking into account that no other procedure of international investigation or settlement has examined her case. 5.2 With regard to the European Court’s decision of 10 February 2015, the complainant submits that it is unclear whether the single judge examined the case, or on what reasons he or she based his or her decision to declare the application inadmissible. The complainant considers that, in the light of the limited information provided in the European Court’s letter dated 10 February 2015, it cannot be assumed that the European Court has examined the matter within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. She submits that given the limited information provided in the European Court’s letter, it is very likely that the European Court has not conducted a proper examination of the substance of her case. She therefore considers that the Committee should consider her complaint admissible and conduct a proper examination of her complaint. 5.3 The complainant submits that, even if the Committee considers that the circumstances presented before both international mechanisms are the same, new circumstances arose in her case after her application to the European Court of Human Rights that demonstrate the risk she would face if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. She indicates that her former husband remarried without divorcing her, which demonstrates that he is still interested in her. She submits that by not divorcing her, he remains her “owner” and he can control her upon her return. Furthermore, the complainant is no longer living in a women’s shelter, without the support of her husband or any other male. Such an independent way of living will have negative consequences upon her return to her country of origin, 16 which renders her complaint to the Committee different from the one she submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, and should be considered as such by the Committee. Additional submissions by the parties 6.1 On 9 February 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that in application No. 60300/14, Yakunova and others v. Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in single judge formation, had found that no violation of the rights established in the European Convention on Human Rights had taken place, and had declared the application inadmissible. The complainant notes that in that case, the European Court indeed examined the substance of the case before declaring it inadmissible. She indicates that the European Court did not express itself in the same way in her case and therefore did not examine it properly. She concludes that her previous application before the European Court does not preclude the Committee from reviewing the present communication. 6.2 On 23 March 2016, the State party indicated that it had no knowledge of the decision of the European Court referred to by the complainant (Yakunova and others v. Sweden) and that it had not seen the letter issued by the Court in that decision. The State party notes that the European Court of Human Rights can formulate its decision regarding the inadmissibility of an application in different ways, and it reiterates that in the complainant’s case, it remains obvious that the European Court declared the application 16 6 No further information is provided on that matter.