CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 Therefore, in the State party’s view, it is clear that the European Court did not dismiss the complainant’s application for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or because the application had not been submitted within the six-month time limit. 4.4 The State party contends that the complainant’s submissions do not include any information according to which the inadmissibility grounds established in article 35 (2) (a) and (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights would be applicable, and that the only remaining admissibility grounds to be considered are those established in article 35 (3) (a) and (b). The State party further submits that, from the wording of the European Convention, it is clear that an assessment of both those grounds must involve a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. In view thereof, it considers that the European Court of Human Rights must have declared the complainant’s application inadmissible for substantial rather than mere procedural grounds and has therefore already examined the same matter raised before the Committee. The State party concludes that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 January 2016, the complainant submitted her comments to the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. With regard to the decision of the European Court of 10 February 2015, the complainant submits that it is unclear whether the single judge examined the case or on what reasons he or she based his or her decision to declare the application inadmissible. The complainant considers that, in the light of the limited information provided in the letter of the European Court dated 10 February 2015, it cannot be assumed that the European Court has examined the matter within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. She submits that, given the limited information provided in the letter of the European Court, it is very likely that the European Court has not conducted a proper examination of the substance of her case. She therefore considers that the Committee should consider her complaint admissible and conduct a proper examination of her complaint. 5.2 Even if the Committee considers that the circumstances presented before both international mechanisms are the same, new circumstances arose in the case of the complainant after her application to the European Court of Human Rights that demonstrate the risk she would face if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her ex-husband remarried in the Islamic Republic of Iran and brought his new wife to Sweden. However, he never formally divorced the complainant in the Islamic Republic of Iran. By not doing so, he remains her “owner” and he can control her upon her return. Furthermore, the complainant no longer lives in a women’s shelter and is not supported by her husband or any other male. Such an independent way of living would have negative consequences for her if she returned to her country of origin,16 which renders her complaint to the Committee different from the one she submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, and should be considered as such by the Committee. 5.3 On 9 February 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that, in application No. 60300/14, Yakunova and others v. Sweden, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in single judge formation, had found that no violation of the rights established in the European Convention on Human Rights had been committed, and had declared the application inadmissible. The complainant notes that, in that case, the European Court indeed examined the substance of the case before declaring it inadmissible. She submits that the European Court did not express itself in the same way in her case and therefore did not examine it properly. She concludes that her previous application before the European Court does not preclude the Committee from reviewing the present communication. 16 No further information is provided on that matter. 5