6.4 The Committee recalls that a State party’s obligations under the Convention apply from the date of its entry into force for that State party. 7 It considers, however, that it can examine alleged violations of the Convention which occurred before a State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence to receive and consider individual communications alleging violations of the Convention (i.e., before the declaration under article 22 became effective, i.e., 4 February 2002, in the present case), if the effects of these violations continued after the declaration under article 22 became effective, and if the effects constitute in themselves a violation of the Convention. A continuing violation must be interpreted as an affirmation, after the formulation of the declaration, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations of the State party. 6.7 In this context, the Committee recalls that it shall not consider any communications 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 is satisfied that examination by the European court of Human Rights constitutes an examination under such a procedure. 6.8 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 observes that application N° 34132/03 was submitted to the European Court by the same complainant, was based on the same facts, and related, at least in part, to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication. 6.5 The Committee has noted that in the present case, the complainant’s allegations under articles 1, 2 and 13, of the Convention (see paras. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 above) all relate to events which occurred before the State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence to consider individual complaints. According to the complainant, however, these alleged violations had effects which continued after the State party’s acceptance of the Committee’s competence under article 22. 6.9 Having concluded that the “same matter” has been the object of the complainant’s application before the European Court and it was examined and declared inadmissible, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), have not been met in the present case. In the circumstances, the Committee decides that it is not necessary to examine the other two grounds of inadmissibility, namely on ratione temporis and non exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6.6 The Committee has equally noted that the complainant filed an application in the European Court of Human Rights, regarding events which occurred after 10 February 1998, which, according to him, can be clearly distinguished from the issues submitted to the Committee. This application was declared inadmissible on 29 April 2005. The European Court held, inter alia, that the complainant’s allegations of mistreatment on death row, which are identical to the claims in the present communication, were inadmissible.8 7. The Committee against Torture consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. 7 See O.R, M.M., and M.S. v. Argentina, communications Nos. 1, 2, and 3/1988, inadmissibility decision adopted in November 1989. 8 The Committee has noted that the European Court, acting through a Committee of three judges, declared the application inadmissible on two grounds: partly on (a) non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (articles 3, 8, 14, and 34, of the European Convention), and (b) with regard to the applicant’s remaining complaints, on the ground that the information before the Court does not reveal any violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms under the Convention. 6