CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 advance.13 According to the complainant, the fact that the authorities decided to expedite the extradition left her with no other choice but to refer the matter to the Committee a few hours before the extradition took place. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 19 April 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party refers, first of all, to the admissibility of the communication. It rejects the complainant’s argument that the application submitted by Onsi Abichou to the European Court of Human Rights was no more than a request for interim measures and that, as a result, the Court did not consider the case on the merits, thus not precluding the admissibility of the communication for consideration by the Committee under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. According to the State party, the complainant’s interpretation is erroneous, since the procedures of the European Court of Human Rights do not allow for the separate consideration of a request for interim measures. Such protection measures serve merely to suspend an expulsion order while the case is being considered by the Court. Moreover, it is apparent that the application was filed with the Court in due form by Onsi Abichou under article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.14 In any event, this was the only way to submit a request for interim measures to the Court, and Onsi Abichou’s lawyer could not have been ignorant of this fact. On 12 August 2010, the European Court of Human Rights informed Onsi Abichou that his request for interim measures had been denied. On 24 August 2010, the Court informed him that his application would be presented to the Court as soon as possible. His lawyer had to have known that his submission to the Court was considered to be an application on the merits and would be treated as such. The State party adds that it requested and, on 7 February 2011, obtained confirmation from the Court that Onsi Abichou’s petition was indeed a complete application that was pending before the Court. It was only at that time that the complainant, realizing that the Committee would not remain unaware of these facts for much longer, decided to withdraw the application from the European Court of Human Rights. This demonstrates that the complainant knew that the application was pending before the Court. According to the State party, what is at issue is a deliberately false statement on the part of the complainant and, consequently, an abuse of the right to submit a communication within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Therefore, the State party asks the Committee to reject the complaint on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication, as well as on the basis of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. 6.2 With regard to the merits of the case, and while specifying that it submits these observations even though it remains convinced that the communication has no legal basis, the State party points out that the extradition procedure provides for two different screening procedures. Any extradition request must first be approved by a higher regional court, which bases its decision on information from a variety of sources, including nongovernmental ones, about the human rights situation in the requesting State. The person concerned is free to submit any information about the potential risks to which he or she 13 14 8 The complainant refers to a message dated 28 July 2010 sent by the Saarbrücken prosecutor to the Wiesbaden investigative police concerning the procedures to be used for Mr. Abichou’s extradition (see para. 2.10). The pertinent paragraph of the application reads as follows: “The applicant submits an application alleging a violation by Germany of article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the same Convention and article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (para. 11). GE.13-45615