Convention, pursuant to which a State party shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 "when the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate". The Committee considers this provision to establish a discretionary faculty rather than a mandatory obligation to make, and insist upon, an extradition request. Accordingly, the complaint falls ratione materiae outside the scope of the articles of the Convention invoked by the complainant. 7. The Committee against Torture consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. ____________________ * The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present complaint: Peter Burns, Guibril Camara, Sayed El-Masry, Alejandro Gonzalez Poblete, Andreas Mavrommatis, Ole Rasmussen, Alexander Yakovlev and Yu Mengjia. Pursuant to Rule 103, paragraph (1) (c), of the Committee's Rules of Procedure, Mr. Fernando Mariño Menendez did not participate in the consideration of this case. ** Pursuant to Rule 113 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure, an individual opinion signed by one Committee member is appended. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English, French and Spanish texts being the original versions.] Individual opinion dissenting in part of Committee member Mr. Guibril Camara, I share the ultimate conclusion of the Committee that this case is inadmissible, but only on the basis of some of the reasons advanced by the majority of the Committee. I fully subscribe to the majority's reasoning as set out in paragraphs 6.4