CAT/C/49/D/437/2010 that this new procedure would be ineffective, in the case of the complainant, should the facts and circumstances so warrant. 2 6.3 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the present communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the sense that there still exists an effective alternative remedy locally. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention; (b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 116, paragraph 2, of the Committee’s rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the complainant containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply; (c) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 2 See communication No. 365/2008, S.K and R.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 21 November 2011, para. 11.3. 7