that, under article 22, paragraph 5 (a) of the Convention, the Committee 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 considered that a communication has been, and is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, if such examination relates/related to the “same matter”, that must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. In the present case, the application before the European Court was submitted by the same complainant, was based on the same facts and related, at least in part, to the same substantive rights as those invoked before the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the communication was inadmissible. 66. Also at its thirty-fifth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 172/2000 (Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro), 174/2000 (Nikolic v. Serbia and Montenegro), 231/2003 (S.N.A.W. v. Switzerland), 235/2003 (M.S.H. v. Sweden), 237/2003 (M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden), 238/2003 (Z.T. v. Norway), 245/2004 (S.S. v. Canada), 254/2004 (S.S.H. v. Switzerland) and 258/2004 (Mostafa Dadar v. Canada). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VIII, section A, to the present report. 67. Complaint No. 172/2000 (Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro), concerned a Serbian citizen of Roma origin claiming violation of several articles of the Convention as a result of the treatment he was subjected to while in police custody. The Committee noted the complainant’s description of the treatment he was subjected to while in detention, which could be characterized as severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by public officials for such purposes as obtaining from him information or a confession or punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating or coercing him for any reason based on discrimination of any kind in the context of the investigation of a crime. It also noted the observations of the investigating judge with respect to his injuries, and photographs of his injuries provided by the complainant. It observed that the State party had not contested the facts as presented by the complainant and observed that the medical report prepared after the examination of the complainant had not been integrated into the complaint file and could not be consulted by the complainant or his counsel. In the circumstances, the Committee concluded that due weight had to be given to the complainant’s allegations and that the facts, as submitted, constituted torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The Committee further noted that the public prosecutor never informed the complainant whether an investigation was being or had been conducted after the criminal complaint was filed and that, as a result, the complainant was prevented from pursuing a “private prosecution” of his case. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation, under article 12 of the Convention, to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation. The State party also failed to comply with its obligation, under article 13, to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. Finally, the Committee noted the complainant’s allegations that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived him of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation. In view of the fact that the State party did not contest this allegation, and given the passage of time since the complainant initiated legal proceedings at the domestic level, the Committee concluded that the State party had also violated its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 84