CAT/C/56/D/577/2013 of electric shocks, he has “heart ache”. He reiterates some of his previous submissions. He states that he asked to be assessed by a medical commission and declared incapacitated; in 2013, he was examined by a prison doctor, who declared that his hearing loss was the result of an ear infection. He maintains that that conclusion was illegal and was made in order to cover up the crimes of the police officers. He asks the Committee to request his complete medical file from the State party and maintains that he is unlawfully deprived of disability certification. 7.5 In a submission dated 24 August 2015, the complainant reiterates some of his previous submissions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that examinations by the European Court of Human Rights constitute such a procedure.1 8.2 The Committee considers that a communication has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the procedure relates or related to the same matter within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a), which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. The Committee observes that on 18 April 2013, the complainant submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation, which was registered under No. 33772/13, and which, according to information received in November 2015, is still pending before the Court. The Committee notes that the complainant did not submit his communication to it until 13 May 2013. The Committee also notes that according to the complainant’s submission (see para. 7.1 above), he wanted the European Court to review the matter of violation of his rights in relation to torture and that in his complaint to the Committee, he made reference to articles 3, 6, 13 and 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the application to the European Court is based on the same facts, and relates, at least in part, to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication. Having concluded that the same matter is being examined before the European Court, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 22 (5) (a) have not been met in the present case and that the complaint is thus inadmissible.2 8.3 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 1 2 See, for example, communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 25 November 2005, para. 6.7 See, for example, communications No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, para. 6.2; No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, para. 6.8; No. 140/1999, A.G. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2000, para. 6.2. 7