CAT/C/64/D/727/2016 procedure and is not linked to the respective European Union Council directive. The complainant notes that, by disregarding this key distinction between a tolerance visa and subsidiary protection, the State party has diminished the international character of the protection that was granted to him by the Czech authorities. 7.2 The complainant notes that his release was made possible following the Committee’s request for interim measures, and that the State party’s position with regard to his extradition remained the same and is based on the comprehensive assurances received from the Belarusian authorities. He insists that, if returned, he will be at foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture and ill-treatment. Regarding the diplomatic assurances, the complainant notes that the State party did not asses several criteria of the European Court of Human Rights, including: whether the local authorities can be expected to abide by the assurances given; whether there is an effective system of protection against torture in place and a willingness by the authorities to cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms; and whether the reliability of the assurances has been properly examined by the domestic courts of the sending country. 7.3 The complainant provided information supporting his argument on the reported torture and ill-treatment in Belarus as documented and reflected in various reports on the situation of human rights in Belarus. 18 7.4 Regarding the State party’s observation that the complainant would not be expelled but extradited, the complainant notes that it is not relevant in what form he would be forced to return to Belarus since he would be at risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Additional submission by the State party 8. On 7 August 2018, the State party, referring to the whereabouts of the complainant, indicated that there was no indication that the complainant was currently residing on its territory. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee notes first, that under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication unless the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee recalls that a communication cannot be considered if it has been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if it relates to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. 19 In this connection, the Committee notes that a case, raising issues concerning the risk for the complainant of forcible return to Belarus, was registered before the European Court for Human Rights, which concluded that the complainant should not be returned to Belarus. 20 The Committee notes, however, that the case in question differs from the present one, as although it related to the same issue and the same complainant, it was submitted against the Czech Republic, whereas the present case is brought against Germany. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (a) from examining the present communication. 9.3 The Committee recalls next 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 complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee takes note of the State party’s preliminary objection that, at the time of the first 18 19 20 6 A/HRC/32/48; A/67/44; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013 and World Report 2016; Human Rights Centre “Viasna”, Report on the Results of Monitoring Places of Detention in Belarus (Minsk, 2015); United States of America Department of State, Belarus 2016 Human Rights Report (Washington, D.C., 2016); and Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2016 (country report on Belarus). See, for example, N.B. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/56/D/577/2013), para. 8.2. See Budrevich v. the Czech Republic.