CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 of the interim ruling concerning the futility of his third application for asylum. The Secretariat rejected his request for a review. 5.3 The complainant contested the interim ruling of 11 August 2015 by lodging an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court on 11 September 2015. He requested the suspension of the ruling of 11 August 2015, which had been negative on account of his failure to pay the fees in advance. In his appeal, the complainant firstly contested the assertion that his application for asylum had no chance of success and then highlighted the real risk that he would face persecution and inhuman treatment if he were deported to the Sudan. In the appeal that he lodged with the Court, the complainant set out all the reasons why the Swiss authorities should examine the merits of his application for asylum. 5.4 The complainant argues that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party must have the opportunity to examine all the evidence referred to in article 3 of the Convention against Torture before the complaint is considered by the Committee. 11 Consequently, the Swiss authorities must have had the opportunity to examine new and significant evidence, namely the evidence of the political activities of the complainant within JEM. The complainant indicates that he had expressed his fear of persecution on account of his membership of and activities within JEM in his third application for asylum dated 16 July 2015 and in his request for a review of the interim ruling of 11 August 2015 concerning the futility of his third application for asylum. In the appeal that he lodged with the Federal Administrative Court on 11 September 2015, the complainant highlighted the real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and, therefore, of persecution that he would face in the Sudan. The complainant detailed his activities as a member of JEM. In that capacity, he regularly attended JEM meetings and public protests in different cities throughout Switzerland. 5.5 The complainant recalls that he had been arrested in the Sudan and persecuted as a political opponent. In view of the dangers faced by persons opposing the State in the Sudan, the complainant would run a real risk of being subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He argues that his deportation to the Sudan would constitute a violation of that article. 5.6 The complainant states that he transmitted all available evidence to the State Secretariat for Migration for it to rule on his application for asylum. However, the Secretariat found his application to have no chance of success, which is why it asked him to pay 600 Swiss francs in advance. 5.7 The complainant has submitted three applications for asylum, all of which have been based on his activities within JEM. All three of his applications for asylum have been rejected. The individual appeals lodged by the complainant have also been rejected by the Federal Administrative Court. Consequently, the Swiss authorities have already ruled three times on the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that the complainant could face in the Sudan. The complainant notes that account must be taken of the fact that, as an unsuccessful applicant for asylum, he is not entitled to work (Asylum Act, art. 43), that his income therefore consists only of emergency financial assistance and that he receives only 5 Swiss francs per day. The complainant argues that he was not in a position to make the advance payment requested and that, consequently, he has exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him, rendering the present communication admissible. The Committee’s decision on admissibility 6.1 On 5 August 2016, at its fifty-eighth session, the Committee examined the admissibility of the complaint. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party contests the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party has asserted that if 11 GE.18-01489 See F.M.-M. v. Switzerland, para. 6.5. 5