CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the complaint 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. 9.2 The complainants maintain essentially that the State party failed to honour its obligations under the Convention by violating article 5 (2) and article 7 (1) in view of the following considerations:  The failure of the Attorney General of Canada to reply to the letter dated 29 September 2011 sent by the complainants’ counsel on their behalf, requesting that an investigation be launched against Mr. Bush in conjunction with his presence in British Columbia starting on 20 October 2011  The letter from the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the federal Ministry of Justice dated 7 November 2011, i.e. three weeks after Mr. Bush ’s visit, replying to the 29 September 2011 letter and indicating that the latter had been transmitted to the appropriate officials  The direct intervention of the Attorney General of British Columbia, which resulted in a stay of the private prosecution that had been initiated before a justice of that province. 9.3 With regard to the lack of a reply from the Attorney General of Canada and the letter from the Ministerial Correspondence Unit, the Committee takes note of the State party’s assertion that its actions in relation to the visit of Mr. Bush were not inconsistent with its obligations under the Convention in view of the “reasonable application of both police investigative discretion and prosecutorial discretion in establishing whether to follow up on the complaint filed by the complainants ”. According to the State party, “prosecution could not go forward based on the information package assembled by the complainants because it did not meet the evidentiary burden required to lay charges or obtain a conviction ”. The State party thus concluded that “the communication was without merit, as the complainants had not established that the State party had violated the Convention”. The Committee notes that, in the letter addressed to the Attorney General of Canada, the complainants ’ counsel indicated their intention to pursue private prosecution, without requesting advance consent from the Attorney General, in the event that the Attorney General did not launch an investigation. The Committee observes that the option for the complainants to pursue private prosecution in the absence of advance consent by the Attorney General, which is an option that exists in other countries as well, was taken advantage of by the complainants through the filing of the information with a justice in British Columbia. 9.4 With regard to the stay of private prosecution resulting from the intervention of the Attorney General of British Columbia in the absence of advance consent by the Attorney General of Canada, the complainants submit that the State party ’s obligation under article 5 (2) of the Convention entails not just the adoption of domestic legislation establishing universal jurisdiction but also the exercise of that jurisdiction when circumstances call for it. The complainants dispute the State party’s position that, under article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Committee lacks competence to consider the communication. 9.5 The Committee notes the State party’s submissions that the Committee lacks competence to consider the alleged violations as the complainants are not and have 15