CAT/C/53/D/482/2011 family are embroiled in a vendetta with another family from a village neighbouring that of the complainants. Since the war, 15 members of the 2 families have been killed. E.S. does not wish to live with the father of her child and fears that he might take her son away from her, since the local tradition dictates that boys are to be raised in the father��s family. E.S.’s son is also in danger of becoming involved in the feud between the families. E.S. also fears for her own safety, as she saw her father’s murderer on several occasions when he came and threatened them at the family home. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that the complainants have exhausted all domestic remedies available to them. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible. Violation of article 22 of the Convention 7. As regards non-compliance with the Committee’s request of 11 November 2011 to suspend removal, the Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the individual complaints procedure established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the Convention (art. 18) vests it with competence to establish its own rules of procedure, which then constitute an integral part of the Convention provided that they do not run counter to it. The Committee further recalls that the State party’s obligations include observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are an integral part of the Convention. This includes rule 114 of the rules of procedure. That rule is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention, which otherwise would offer asylum seekers claiming a serious risk of torture nothing more than a purely relative, not to say theoretical, form of protection.13 Consequently, the Committee considers that, by sending one of the complainants back to Kosovo despite having agreed to the Committee’s request for interim measures, thereby presenting the Committee with a fait accompli, the State party has committed a breach of its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. Examination of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to Kosovo would constitute a failure to fulfil the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The 13 GE.15-00578 See communication No. 249/2004, Dar v. Norway, decision of 11 May 2007, para. 16.3; and communication No. 300/2006, Tebourski v. France, decision of 1 May 2007, para. 8.6. 9