CAT/C/64/D/727/2016 submission of the complaint, it was inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pending the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. However, following the final ruling of the Court on 10 February 2016, the State party, in its submission dated 5 August 2016, indicated that all domestic remedies had in fact been exhausted. The Committee, therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 9.4 The Committee recalls that, for a claim to be admissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. 21 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, owing to the fact that the warrant for extradition custody has been lifted and the complainant has been released, and that his current location was unknown. In this context, the Committee notes the argument of the complainant that he was released only because of the interim measure granted by the Committee, and that the State party will pursue its decision to extradite him relying on the assurances of the Belarusian authorities. 9.5 Referring to the assurances, the Committee reiterates its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 and notes that diplomatic assurances from a State party to the Convention to which a person is to be deported should not be used as a loophole to undermine the principle of non-refoulement as set out in article 3 of the Convention, in cases in which there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture in that State. The Committee notes that, in the past, the Czech authorities had granted the complainant a subsidiary protection status, and extended it multiple times noting that the risk to the complainant of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in Belarus could not be excluded.22 In this context, the Committee regrets that the State party put into question the decision taken by the Czech authorities, as well as the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the Czech Republic would violate article 13, in conjunction with article 3, of the European Convention on Human Rights by extraditing the complainant to Belarus. 9.6 However, the Committee considers that the case became moot due to the fact that the complainant has been already released and thus, at present, there is no foreseeable, present, personal and real risk that he will be returned to Belarus and tortured or ill-treated. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, the existence of a personal risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, and in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its rules of procedure, the Committee concludes that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. When taking this decision, the Committee is aware that, in any event, the complainant would be able to submit a new case to the Committee against the State party if a new risk for his forcible removal to Belarus occurs in the future. 10. The Committee against Torture therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 21 22 See, for example, Z. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 6.3. Reference is made to CAT/C/BLR/CO/4. 7