CAT/C/57/D/598/2014 the media to the Centre was prohibited. The complainant stated that he was not aware of any other identification procedure besides fingerprinting and claimed that the State should grant access to the fingerprints database to ascertain whether he was present on the island. 5.2 The complainant argued that the State party had not provided evidence that migrants had been able to appeal to a justice of the peace and that the Justice of the Peace of Agrigiento had informed the Ministry of Justice that no appeal had been submitted by him. 5.3 As for the information on the functioning of the Centre provided by the State party, the complainant replied that his complaint related to the impossibility of a judicial review of detention, lack of information on his fate and his rights, lack of access to legal advice and the poor conditions of detention. 5.4 The complainant also stated that he had not received any decision or court order regarding his detention and expulsion, and that he had not been informed about the possibility of requesting asylum. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint 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. 6.2 The Committee notes the argument by the State party that the complainant’s presence in Lampedusa could not be established through official records despite the fact that all the migrants arriving at the detention facilities on the island had been personally interviewed and registered. In this regard, the Committee observes that, although the complainant alleges having passed through several procedures involving the authorities of the State party, such as identification, transfer from the detention facility in Lampedusa to the airport and then to the boat in Palermo, an identification meeting with the consul of Tunisia, and subsequent deportation to Tunisia by plane, he has not provided any documentary evidence of his travel, his stay at the detention facility in Lampedusa or on a boat in Palermo, or his return to Tunisia, and has not explained the reasons for the absence of any relevant documents. In these circumstances and in the absence of any further information of pertinence on file, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims for the purpose of admissibility. 6.3 In addition, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party argues that the complainant failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as he could have complained to the Justice of the Peace of Agrigiento. The Committee also notes the claim of the complainant that no remedies have been made available to him because he never received any decision regarding detention or expulsion, never had any contact with the authorities and was not informed about his rights. The Committee observes that the complainant’s claim relates to the conditions of his detention, not to his expulsion. In this context, it notes that the complainant has not provided any information on whether he tried to complain about the conditions of his detention to the officials or the heads of the detention centre in Lampedusa or on the boat in Palermo, or whether he tried to seek any advice on this matter from the volunteers who came to the centre. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not complained to the authorities of Italy about his treatment in detention since being deported 4 GE.16-09656