CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 extradition. The fact that Onsi Abichou was not tortured upon arriving in Tunisia — no doubt due in large part to the attention focused on his case, especially by the media — cannot retrospectively justify the actions of the State party. For these reasons, the complainant invites the Committee to find that the State party acted in violation of article 3 of the Convention and of the interim measures requested by the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Failure to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure 9.1 The Committee regrets that its request for interim measures was not respected. It recognizes the State party’s efforts to transmit the Committee’s request for interim measures as expeditiously as possible, given the circumstances, and concludes that, in the present instance, the State party cannot be said to have failed to meet its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes that Onsi Abichou submitted an application (registered under No. 33841/10) to the European Court of Human Rights and that this application related to the same matter as the one before the Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the application was withdrawn and struck off the Court’s list of cases on 7 April 2011 before having been considered on the merits by that instance. Consequently, the Committee considers that the provisions of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention do not preclude its consideration of the complaint.26 10.2 In the absence of any further obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of the merits under article 3 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 11.2 The Committee must determine whether, by extraditing the alleged victim to Tunisia, the State party failed to fulfil its obligation under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention to refrain from expelling or returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee stresses that it must take a decision on this question in the light of the information which the authorities of the State party had or should have had in their possession at the time of the extradition. Subsequent events are useful only in assessing what information the State party actually had or should have had at the time of extradition.27 11.3 The Committee recalls that the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the person in question was personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to 26 27 14 See communication No. 215/2002, M.J.A.G.V. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 November 2003, para. 6.1. See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, para. 15.2 and communication No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, decision adopted on 20 May 2005, para. 15.2. GE.13-45615