PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture the Convention or its Protocols’. However,194 in the particular circumstances of this case, the limited reasoning contained in the succinct terms of the Court’s letter does not allow the Committee to assume that the examination included sufficient consideration of the merits in accordance with the information provided to the Committee by both the author and the State party. Consequently, the Committee considers that there is no obstacle to its examining the present communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.195 ii. CAT Under Article 22(5)(1) of CAT, the CAT Committee may not consider any complaint that has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Unlike the ICCPR, this ground of inadmissibility is not limited to situations where a complaint is being simultaneously considered by another international body: the CAT Committee is also precluded from examining complaints that have been considered under an analogous procedure, even if that process is complete.196 In Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, the complainant had submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights which related to the same facts (use of force by police officers against the complainant, see also Section 4.2). The application was still pending and had not yet been transmitted to the State party. In addition, the application had been lodged seven months after the first complaint was submitted to the CAT Committee. In such circumstances, the CAT Committee took the view that the complaint could not be seen as “being” or “having been” examined under another procedure of international investigation of settlement and, subsequently, declared the complaint admissible.197 In two other cases, the CAT Committee has declared the complaint admissible given that the application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights was withdrawn before having been examined on the merits by that body.198 It can be expected that the CAT Committee will follow the case law of the HRC with regard to other relevant issues, such as the definition of a relevant international procedure, and the definition of the “same matter”. 194 195 196 197 198 Emphasis added. HRC, Achabal Puertas v. Spain, Comm. No. 1945/2010, para. 7.3. See CAT Committee, E.E. v. Russian Federation, Comm. No. 479/2011, paras. 8.3–8.5. CAT Committee, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, Comm. No. 257/2004, para. 6.1. CAT Committee: Abichou v. Germany, Comm. No. 430/2010, para. 10.1; M.J.A.G.V. v. Sweden, Comm. No. 215/2002, para. 6.1. 75