CAT/C/35/D/250/2004 Page 13 6.6 The State party reiterates that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the “same matter” has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and as manifestly unfounded. [It contests the complainant’s allegation that the expulsion order has become statute-barred under the Aliens Act, because it had not been enforced within four years. According to the State party, the four-year- limit is not applicable to decisions taken by an ordinary court.] Issues and proceedings before the Committee: 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee has taken note of the complainant’s argument that he chose not to appeal the 1997 judgment of the Uppsala District Court because risked incurring a heavier sentence if the expulsion order was repealed. It also notes the complainant’s allegation that this fear was not merely subjective, but that it was based on his previous experience in 1993, when his term of imprisonment was increased. However, since the Court of Appeal had repealed the expulsion order in 1993, the Committee considers that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, that an appeal to repeal the 1997 expulsion order would have been ineffective. Nor is the Committee persuaded that remedies such as petitions to the Government or the Parliamentary Ombudsman absolved the complainant from pursuing available judicial remedies before the ordinar y courts against the judgment which had ordered his expulsion. The complainant’s alleged mental and emotional problems at the time of the second Uppsala District Court expulsion order (In 1997) also did not absolve him from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee concludes that, in these circumstances, the complaint is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention. 7.3 Having decided that the complaint is inadmissible for the above -mentioned reason, the Committee deems it unnecessary to consider the other grounds of inadmissibility invoked by the State party. 8. The Committee decides that: (a) That the complaint is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Conv ention; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French, Spanish and Russian, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]