CAT/C/66/D/729/2016 5.6 The complainant considers that he has shown the risk of his being subjected to persecution, torture or cruel or degrading treatment and that the risk is personal, foreseeable and real, and therefore his expulsion to the Russian Federation would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s additional observations 6. By note verbale dated 1 November 2018, the State party reiterated its previous position and requested early consideration of the present communication, arguing that the complainant’s expulsion will be time-barred on 11 May 2019. If the new application is submitted before the Migration Agency, it will be examined anew, and will be subject to appeals before the Migration Court and Migration Court of Appeal. Therefore, once the expulsion order expires, the complainant’s claim would be inadmissible due to nonexhaustion of domestic remedies. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7. The complainant rejects the argument by the State party that the communication should be considered as soon as possible. The main concern in this case should be justice for the complainant, and the State party should have carried out a proper investigation of his claims. If a new asylum request is submitted, the complainant hopes it will be considered in a more rigorous manner; but until then, the interim measures should remain in place. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee 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. 8.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. The Committee observes, however, that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant and his children to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into 6