CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 5.5 Finally, the complainant submits that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights did not concern “the same matter” contained in his complaint to the Committee within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. He refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which a case concerns “the same matter” if it is related to “the same parties, the same facts, and the same substantive rights”.12 The complainant claims that his complaint to the Committee presented a broader range of violations committed by the State party than those that he brought to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights, referring to the fact that he also invoked a violation of article 10 of the Convention before the Committee, whereas the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a similar provision. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 6 August 2018, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the case, recalling that the complainant had been detained at Guantanamo Bay from 15 February 2002 to 25 April 2005. 6.2 According to the State party, the complainant claims that Belgium has not taken necessary measures to prevent, stop and investigate the acts of torture against him, that it has not investigated and prosecuted the officials implicated in the acts of torture, and that it has not taken measures of education or instruction for personnel involved in the detention, interrogation or treatment of persons detained or imprisoned. He also claims a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention on the basis of the failure of Belgian authorities to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the acts of torture against an individual under the jurisdiction of the State party, and a violation of article 14 of the Convention by failing to provide him, as a Belgian national, with adequate reparation for acts of torture. 6.3 The complainant requests the Committee to find a violation of the Convention articles referred to, to request an explanation for the actions of the Belgian authorities implicated in the decision not to investigate the torture of the complainant, and to request that Belgian authorities carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the acts of torture, including a reopening of the criminal procedure against those suspected of complicity, and granting the complainant full compensation and rehabilitation. 6.4 The State party submits that the complainant was released by the United States authorities on 24 April 2005, following the agreement dated 20 April 2005, and that he returned to Belgium subsequently. On 18 June 2010, a medical certificate was issued by Dr. Audenaert, attesting the complainant’s symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoia and psychotic behaviour, which can be attributable to his ill-treatment in Guantanamo Bay. 6.5 The State party reiterates that the complaint is inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention since the European Court of Human Rights on 2 June 2016 declared the complainant’s application inadmissible. The State party has deduced that such conclusion was reached for reasons related to the merits, rather than to procedure, since Belgium did not exercise any power or factual control over the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and hence the European Convention on Human Rights would not apply. In its view, the European Court of Human Rights has accepted extraterritorial jurisdiction only exceptionally, for example when in effective control of foreign territory. The European Court of Human Rights generally concludes inadmissibility of the applications in similar circumstances, due to the absence of a jurisdictional link between the victim of the alleged violations and the defendant State, when the latter did not exercise jurisdiction extraterritorially. 13 The State party also notes that the application could not be considered inadmissible on formal procedural grounds, since domestic remedies were duly exhausted and the application was submitted within the sixmonth time limit. Accordingly, the State party reiterates that the European Court of Human Rights has examined the complainant’s application on the merits. 12 13 6 See, for example, A.R.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/38/D/305/2006), para. 6.2. See, for example, the decision of inadmissibility in Bankovic et al. v. Belgium and 16 other States parties (application No. 52207/99) or in Khan v. United Kingdom (application No. 6222/10).