CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 Abichou had been handed over to the Tunisian authorities at Frankfurt airport at around 1.15 p.m. 4.5 The State party is of the view that the amount of time taken for the transmission of the Committee’s request for interim measures on behalf of Mr. Abichou was entirely reasonable, taking into account the time required to alert the competent authorities at the State level. Under the circumstances, the amount of time allowed for a response from the State party was too short. The State party believes in the necessity of acting promptly in matters relating to article 3 of the Convention and reaffirms its commitment to comply with the requests of the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures under rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.6 The State party adds that the communication is inadmissible in limine under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention,12 since Mr. Abichou had submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the same events. Furthermore, the Court had rejected his request for interim measures. That case was based on the same argument as the one made before the Committee, namely that Mr. Abichou would face a substantial risk of torture if returned to Tunisia. The fact that Mr. Abichou alleged additional violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in his application to the European Court of Human Rights is of no consequence. The State party adds that interim measures should not be used in cases which are clearly inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 23 December 2010, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. She rejects the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention on the grounds that Mr. Abichou had requested interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights, under rule 39 of the Rules of Court, whereby Germany would be instructed to stay the extradition order pending the matter’s referral to the Court and the Court’s ruling on the merits of the case. 5.2 According to the complainant, the application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights by Mr. Abichou, through his counsel, is entitled “Rule 39 application”. Consequently, the Court’s decision to reject the request related only to the application made under rule 39. According to the complainant, at no point had a request seeking a reversal of the German judicial officials’ authorization of the extradition of Mr. Abichou to Tunisia been referred to the Court or had the Court rendered its views on the merits of such an application. Only the Committee against Torture had received such a request, so it could be concluded that “the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement”, as required by article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. 5.3 Regarding the issue of the State party’s non-compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures, which the State party attributed to an overly short deadline, the complainant states that it was only on the morning of 25 August 2010 that Mr. Abichou learned he would be extradited that same afternoon, even though the German judicial authorities had requested the judicial police to provide the date of extradition two weeks in 12 GE.13-45615 The State party refers to communication No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, para. 6.2. 7