CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 while the monitoring reports are supposed to act as a safeguard against potential violations, the general nature of the reports, combined with the fact that the publication of the reports is irregular and frequently late, decreases the reliability of the reports as a protective measure. Furthermore, the complainant claims that the intimidation and threats of the Rwandan authorities have a serious effect on his morale. He also claims that the evidence presented against him by the prosecution is based on hearsay and that it has been impossible to find defence witnesses willing to testify for him, as they fear that they will be intimidated and persecuted if they come forward. Defence lawyers and investigators are also under pressure from the authorities, and therefore are very cautious in choosing their line of defence. State party’s further observations 8.1 On 10 October 2018, the State party submitted further observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It reiterates its position that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled on the same matter, that the complainant failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies and for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes of admissibility. It also reiterates its submission that should the Committee find the communication to be admissible, then the complaint is without merit. 8.2 Regarding its submission that the claim should be declared inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims for purposes of admissibility, the State party refers to its submission of 27 July 2017. Furthermore, it notes that the present situation, one year on, shows that the Rwandan authorities are still acting in accordance with the guarantees they have given, and that prison conditions are good. The State party argues that, given the fact that the Rwandan authorities have continued to treat the complainant well since his arrival in November 2016, there is no reason to expect that the treatment of the complainant will change in the future. That assertion is supported by the fact that in proceedings against other genocide suspects being tried under the Transfer Law, such as Jean Uwinkindi, no treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention has occurred. The State party submits that there is no reason to assume that the complainant is at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention with regard to the remainder of the trial and any possible prison sentence. 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. 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 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. 17 The Committee observes that on 8 July 2016, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation, declared the complainant’s application inadmissible, as the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met, without providing any explanation as to the specific reasons that had led it to such a finding. The Committee notes that the complainant’s application before the court appears to refer to the same facts as those raised in the present communication. The Committee also notes, however, that the Court’s decision does not set forth a reasoning for the inadmissibility finding and that it does not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court examined the complainant’s application, including whether it conducted a thorough analysis of the 17 N.B. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/56/D/577/2013), para. 8.2. 9