CCPR/C/126/D/2570/2015 do not satisfy the conventional standards and has even considered the practices of illtreatment in custody and the lack of investigation to constitute a systemic problem. 30 7.5 Finally, on 24 November 2017, the author’s counsel informed the Committee that the author was arrested on 21 November 2017, based on an order of preventive detention issued on 21 July 2014 with a view to his “material rendition” to the requesting State. The author has never been formally served with that order. Then on 28 December 2017, counsel informed the Committee that on 11 December 2017, the author was handed to the Ukrainian authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has to ascertain, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, whether the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee observes that, on 11 August 2014, the author presented an application based on the same facts before the European Court of Human Rights. However, on 30 October 2014 and 13 November 2014, a single judge formation of the Court rejected the application. The Committee notes, however, that the Court’s decision does not set forth a justification for the inadmissibility finding and that there is no clarification as to the basis of the decision. The letter from the Court stated that on the basis of the items of evidence in its possession and insofar as it was competent to decide on the complaints submitted to it, it had concluded that the author’s application did not meet the admissibility criteria established under articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee also notes that the State party did not challenge the author’s argument concerning the non-preclusive effect of the decision of the European Court. 8.3 The Committee recalls its case law relating to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, according to which, when the European Court bases a declaration of inadmissibility not solely on procedural grounds, but also on grounds arising from some degree of consideration of the substance of the case, then the matter should be deemed to have been examined within the meaning of the respective reservations to article 5. However, the Committee also recalls that, even in cases where applications have been declared inadmissible for lack of an appearance of a violation, the limited reasoning outlined in some decisions of this sort do not enable the Committee to assume that the European Court has examined a case on the merits.31 In the present case, the Committee notes that the decision of the European Court does not state that the appearance of a violation was not observed but rather indicates simply that the application fails to meet admissibility requirements, without further explanation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the present communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that by allowing his extradition to Ukraine, the State party would violate his rights under articles 7, 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 10 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. It notes the author’s allegations that, upon return to Ukraine, he 30 31 See, for example, Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, application No. 760/03, judgment of 26 July 2012, paras. 80 and 83; Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, application No. 55749/08, judgment of 29 January 2015, para. 70; and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, application No. 23893/03, judgment of 15 May 2012, paras. 180–182. See, for example, Achabal Puertas v. Spain (CCPR/C/107/D/1945/2010), para. 7.3, and A.G.S. v. Spain (CCPR/C/115/D/2626/2015), para. 4.2. 9