CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 landlady decided to take the key, the complainant attacked him and started shouting. In response, he slightly pushed her. The complainant was not injured and did not suffer any kind of harm. After the arrival of the police, the complainant confirmed that she had no problems with the landlady or her brother. After the detailed analysis of the incident and considering that the complainant did not request further investigation, the police decided to close the case. 6.4 Regarding the complainant’s allegation that she was insulted by the police on 1 October 2015 (para. 2.24) and that no disciplinary proceedings were conducted, the State party provides information demonstrating that these allegations are also false. 6.5 The State party then draws attention to the complainant’s false statement that she was arbitrarily denied access to social aid. The complainant received the equivalent of more than $6,100 in social aid up to 2016, but since then, she categorically refuses to present her residence permit to the Ministry, which is a precondition for receiving financial support. Thus, it is due to the complainant’s deliberate negligence that she no longer receives financial aid. The State party finds no rational ground on which the complainant could complain of the situation that she herself has created. 6.6 In the light of the above, the State party expresses its deepest concern for the complainant’s abusive behaviour and concludes that to find such a complaint, which is totally contra sensu, admissible would not only hinder the credibility of the whole proceedings, but would also undermine the very spirit of the Convention, which is intended to be used in the fight against the gravest human rights violations, rather than dealing with fictional conspiracy theories. 6.7 On 7 August 2018, the State party submitted that, since 28 October 2016, the complainant’s humanitarian status had been extended twice, and that she would enjoy that status until 28 October 2018, when the Ministry would again consider renewing it for one year in accordance with domestic legislation. The State party also submits that since the complainant benefits from humanitarian status, she is not subject to expulsion from Georgia and that the State party has no such intention. It further reiterates that the complainant uses abusive language vis-à-vis the Georgian authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 7.2 As to the complainant’s allegations of abuse by public officials of the State party, the Committee notes the State party’s plea of inadmissibility based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It notes that the complainant was able, under national legislation, to challenge the prosecutor’s decision to close the investigation into her allegations — first, before the superior prosecutor and then before the courts. The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that she did not contest the two decisions to close the investigations because she had not been informed about them. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s statement that the complainant refused to take part in various investigations initiated in her case, that the complainant did not raise allegations of torture or other illtreatment before national authorities, and that the complainant has not provided any documentation or information to the contrary. The Committee therefore concludes that the part of the communication in respect of articles 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention is inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be held inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations of a risk of torture or ill-treatment in case of her forced removal to Nigeria. However, it notes that the complainant has not provided any evidence in that regard, but 13