present, that his intention was to seek work in Germany, and the truthfulness of that statement was not questioned during the asylum proceedings in Spain. 7.5 The Committee concludes that the communication on behalf of X has not been sufficiently justified as regards the claimed violation of article 3 of the Convention b/ but is rather a matter of political asylum, making the communication incompatible with article 22 of the Convention. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) (b) party. That the communication is inadmissible; That this decision shall be communicated to the author and the State [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the Spanish text being the original version.] Notes a/ In the Committee’s rulings on communications No. 13/1993 (Mutombo v. Switzerland) and No. 15/1994 (Khan v. Canada), both authors alleged and submitted medical evidence and other documents to demonstrate that they had been detained and tortured before fleeing their respective countries. b/ Compare decisions in cases No. 17/1994 (X v. Switzerland) and No. 18/1994 (X v. Switzerland), which were declared inadmissible on 17 November 1994. -58-