CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 Human Rights considered the application inadmissible without giving any other reasons beyond referring to articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 9.2 The Committee considers that in the present case, the succinct reasoning provided by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision of 29 November 2012 does not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court examined the complainant’s application, including whether it conducted a thorough analysis of the elements related to the merits of the case. Consequently, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 9.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s allegation that the complainant failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, because after the decision by the Director General of Public Prosecutions not to investigate the matter, the complainant could have initiated a private prosecution against any of the suspected officers, or could have filed a complaint directly with the police. Furthermore, instead of taking the prosecution route, the complainant could have sought relief from the Government through an ordinary civil suit, claiming damages and/or a declaratory judgment to establish that the complainant’s individual rights under the Convention had been violated. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that he could not bring a private prosecution because he did not know the identities of the police officers who came into his cell at night, and that he has taken his penal case as far as possible, making it unreasonable to ask him for further steps in addition to those he has already taken. The Committee further notes the complainant’s argument that when there are alternative remedies available, a State party cannot demand that all possible legal remedies be exhausted, as it must be sufficient that one claim has been pursued as far as possible. 9.4 In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, which indicates that having unsuccessfully exhausted one remedy, one should not be required, for the purposes of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, to exhaust alternative legal avenues that would have been directed essentially to the same end and would in any case not have offered better chances of success.28 Consequently, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from considering the communication. 9.5 Not having found any other obstacle to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 10.2 The complainant has alleged a violation of article 16 (1) of the Convention, on the grounds that he was placed overnight in solitary confinement upon his arrest, without access to psychiatric care, and suffered beatings by the police. In this respect, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the police had no prior knowledge of the complainant having mental illness, that he did not request any medical treatment, and that his suffering during his stay in the holding cell did not go beyond the inevitable element of suffering that is connected with detention in a situation such as the matter in hand. The Committee also notes the medical reports provided by the complainant, describing his physical injuries after his release from police detention, and the State party’s explanation that the complainant’s injuries were compatible with the lawful use of force that was necessary when he resisted arrest and detention. While the Committee agrees that a certain amount of pain and suffering may arise from the lawful arrest of an uncooperative and/or violent individual, considering that the use of force in such circumstances is limited to what is necessary and proportionate,29 it regrets that the police failed, at the time of the author’s detention, to make a full record and account of the injuries, which were likely to be visible at the time of detention, in order to allow for an objective review of the time and origin of 28 29 Osmani v. Serbia (CAT/C/42/D/261/2005), para. 7.1. Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria (CAT/C/41/D/257/2004), para. 9.3. 11