CAT/C/30/D/216/2002 page 7 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 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. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.2 As to the State party’s argument that the complaint is inadmissible for incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee considers that the part of the complaint concerning the alleged possibility of being handed over to Palestinian authorities is mere speculation on the complainant’s part. The Committee observes that the possibility of any such handover, let alone any consequences that might follow, have not been substantiated in any form. Similarly, the complainant’s claims with respect to Jordan plainly fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. As a result, the Committee considers, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its revised rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, and thus inadmissible. 7. Accordingly, the Committee decides: (a) that the complaint is inadmissible; (b) that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, 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.] Notes 1 The complainant refers to the “PLO” (except for one reference to the Palestinian Authority) throughout the complaint. 2 Extract from (apparently) Human Rights Watch “Torture and physical abuse by the security forces” (unspecified/undated weblink); Amnesty International “Human rights in the Middle East: Reports: Jordan” (www.amnesty-volunteer.org/usa/mideast/reports/jordan.html; according to the web page, it was last updated on 4 January 1998); Amnesty International “Jordan: An absence of safeguards” (web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/ DE839FE5F4399ED18025690000692C42?Open; 1 November 1998). 3 See, for example, Y v. Switzerland Case No. 18/1994, Views adopted on 17 November 1994. -----