CAT/C/60/D/465/2011 reside at his former home in order to receive information on the progress of the investigation in relation to his complaints, as the case is territorially bound to St. Petersburg. Furthermore, he explains that his past travel to Finland was before the situation became threatening. 7.5 According to the complainant, his asylum request was justified, supported by the fact that he was considered an asylum seeker for 18 months whereas ill-founded cases are dismissed within three weeks and followed by deportation within eight days. His lawyer confirmed that the Immigration Service had accepted his account of the events. Its decision contained the following statement: “The applicant justified his asylum request based on violence and torture by the authorities.” He does not know why he was not granted asylum in the circumstances, despite the supporting documents, the names of the investigators processing his complaints and the name of the on-duty police officer at the police station where he was tortured. He is surprised that the Finnish authorities inquired with the Russian Federation authorities whether the complainant risked torture in the Russian Federation. He claims that this creates an additional risk for him as his confidentiality was not respected, and that this constitutes a violation of his rights and of migration legislation, and as such is an additional ground for granting him asylum. 7.6 Challenging the State party’s assessment of the risk of torture upon removal under general comment No. 1 (1997), the complainant submits that there is a pattern of human rights violations in the Russian Federation which is not improving, specifically with regard to freedom of expression; that he was tortured on the night of 28-29 July 2007; that he provided medical evidence in support of his claim, including X-rays from the Russian Federation and Finland, dated 2009.4 He also appends a press article about the murder of an arrested teenager by a policeman in St. Petersburg. 7.7 On 20 March 2012, the complainant provided additional information about the mistreatment of several persons by policemen in four regions of the Russian Federation. One case resulted in death. In his view, this confirms the claim that he would not be protected from police misconduct in his home country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering a claim contained 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 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of said remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party argues that the complainant has not availed himself of leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court and has never asked the domestic courts to suspend his deportation. The Committee notes the complainant’s challenge to the State party’s argumentation, particularly on the ground that lodging such an appeal would not have suspended his imminent deportation and therefore it would have been ineffective to file it after the deportation. 8.3 The Committee observes that it has not been disputed by the State party that an application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court has no suspensive effect unless, according to section 200 of the Aliens Act, there is reason to believe that the removal may expose the alien to a risk of death, torture, persecution or other treatment 4 6 A medical certificate dated 10 June 2009 by a Finnish surgeon and an adduced X-ray, on file, testify to the absence of a ball-and-socket joint and damage to a muscle in the complainant’s left arm, as a result of which he has difficulty lifting his arm, has acute pain and takes painkillers.