CAT/C/50/D/479/2011 8.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party’s objection regarding the admissibility of the communication. It notes, first that in March 2004, the complainant’s mother had applied to the European Court of Human Rights with a similar complaint regarding the complainant’s ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation and his subsequent conviction based on his forced confessions. This application was declared inadmissible on 28 March 2006. In this regard, the Committee notes that contrary to the complainant’s submission that the application before the European Court of Human Rights was dismissed due to the failure to comply with the six-months’ time limit (see paragraph 5.3 above), the material on file demonstrates that the European Court, acting through a Committee of three judges, declared the claims inadmissible on the ground that the information before the Court does not reveal any violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 8.3 The Committee recalls1 that it shall not consider any communication from an individual under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee considers that examination by the European Court of Human Rights in the present case constituted an examination. 8.4 The Committee considers that a communication “has been”, and “is being examined” by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the procedure relates/related to the “same matter” within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), that must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts, and the same substantive rights. It concludes from the information on the case file that Application No. 14986/04 submitted to the European Court in 2004 on behalf of the complainant concerned the same person, was based on the same facts, and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication.2 8.5 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), have not been met in the present case. In light of this conclusion, the Committee will not examine other grounds of inadmissibility invoked by the State party, namely, those concerning the issues of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Russian and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 1 2 See, for example, communication No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, Inadmissibility Decision adopted on 30 April 2007, para. 6.1. See, for example, communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, Inadmissibility Decision adopted on 25 November 2005, paras. 6.6 – 6.9. 7