CAT/C/59/D/691/2015 alleged to have been violated. Given that on 10 February 2015, the European Court of Human Rights decided to reject the complainant’s request for interim measures and to declare her application inadmissible, the complainant must have stated the reasons for her request to that Court. The State party therefore finds it evident that the application to the European Court of Human Rights and the request for interim measures submitted by the complainant must, as is the case with the present communication to the Committee, have concerned the risks that she would allegedly face if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party therefore concludes that the present communication concerns the same matter as the application previously lodged by the complainant to the European Court of Human Rights.13 4.4 With regard to the issue of whether the European Court of Human Rights has examined the substance of the complainant’s application in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the State party recalls that the Committee has on many occasions considered that a communication has been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if its decision was not solely based on mere procedural grounds, but on reasons that indicate a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 14 The State party notes that, according to the complainant’s submissions and the European Court’s letter, the European Court declared the complainant’s application inadmissible on 10 February 2015, since it found that the admissibility criteria in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met. The State party notes that there is nothing in the complainant’s submission that indicates that her application to the European Court did not fulfil the criteria established in article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is evident from the facts of the case that the decision concerning the complainant’s expulsion had gained legal force and that she had exhausted domestic remedies in 2014 before she submitted her application to the European Court. In addition, according to the European Court’s case law, the six-month time limit does not de facto apply in cases concerning expulsion when the applicant has not yet been expelled. 15 Therefore, in the State party’s view, it is clear that the European Court of Human Rights did not dismiss the complainant’s application for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or because the application had not been submitted within the six-month time limit. 4.5 The State party contends that the complainant’s submissions do not include any information according to which the inadmissibility grounds established in article 35 (2) (a) and (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights would be applicable, and that the only remaining admissibility grounds to be considered are those established in article 35 (3) (a) and (b). The State party submits that from the wording of the European Convention, it is clear that an assessment of both those grounds must involve a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. Therefore, the State party considers that the European Court of Human Rights must have declared the complainant’s application inadmissible for substantial rather than mere procedural grounds. Therefore, the State party contends that the European Court of Human Rights has already examined the same matter raised before the Committee, and concludes that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 13 14 15 The State party quotes M.T. v. Sweden; communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 6.1 and 6.2; and No.140/1999, A.G. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2000, paras. 6.2 and 7. The State party quotes M.T. v. Sweden; communications No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 25 November 2005, paras. 6.6-6.9; and No. 479/2011, E.E. v. Russian Federation, decision adopted on 23 May 2013, paras. 8.2-8.4. The State party quotes the European Court of Human Rights, P.Z. and others v. Sweden (application No. 68194/10 of 29 May 2012) and B.Z. v. Sweden (application No. 74352/11 of 29 May 2012). 5