CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 granted residence permits and international protection.11 Furthermore, the complainant cites the 2014 human rights report on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Department of State of the United States of America, which contains information on the human rights violations suffered by women in the country. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 25 September 2013, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint, claiming that the European Court of Human Rights had already examined the same matter raised before the Committee. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence in which it has consistently held that the “same matter”, within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights.12 In that connection, it notes that the present communication raises claims under article 3 of the Convention in relation to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It points out that, from the letter of the European Court of Human Rights to the complainant dated 10 February 2015, it is clear that she had submitted an application to the Court, including a request that the Court prevent her expulsion to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.2 The State party indicates that, according to the Court’s requirements concerning requests for interim measures, complainants must state the reasons on which their particular fears are based, the nature of the alleged risks and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights that have allegedly been violated. Given that, on 10 February 2015, the European Court of Human Rights decided to reject the complainant’s request for interim measures and to declare her application inadmissible, the complainant must have stated the reasons for her request to that Court. The State party therefore finds it evident that the application to the European Court of Human Rights and the request for interim measures submitted by the complainant must, as is the case with the present communication to the Committee, have concerned the risks that she would allegedly face if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party therefore concludes that the present communication concerns the same matter as the application previously lodged by the complainant with the European Court of Human Rights.13 4.3 With regard to the issue of whether the European Court of Human Rights has examined the substance of the complainant’s application in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the State party recalls that the Committee has on many occasions considered that a communication has been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if its decision was not based solely on mere procedural grounds, but also on reasons that indicate a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 14 The State party notes that, according to the complainant’s submissions and the letter of the European Court, the European Court declared the complainant’s application inadmissible on 10 February 2015, since it found that the admissibility criteria in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met. The State party also notes that there is nothing in the complainant’s submission that indicates that her application to the European Court did not fulfil the criteria established in article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is evident from the facts of the case that the decision concerning the complainant’s expulsion had gained legal force and that she had exhausted domestic remedies in 2014 before she submitted her application to the European Court. In addition, according to case law of the European Court, the six-month time limit does not de facto apply in cases concerning expulsion when the applicant has not yet been expelled. 15 11 12 13 14 15 4 No further information is provided on the report. The State party quotes M.T. v. Sweden (CAT/C/55/D/642/2014) and the Committee’s decisions on the communications cited therein. The State party quotes M.T. v. Sweden; A.R.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/38/D/305/2006), paras. 6.1–6.2; and A.G. v. Sweden (CAT/C/24/D/140/1999), paras. 6.2 and 7. The State party quotes M.T. v. Sweden; A.A. v. Azerbaijan (CAT/C/35/D/247/2004), paras. 6.6–6.9; and E.E. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/50/D/479/2011), paras. 8.2–8.4. The State party quotes the European Court of Human Rights, P.Z. and others v. Sweden (application No. 68194/10), judgment of 29 May 2012; and B.Z. v. Sweden (application No. 74352/11), judgment of 18 December 2012.