CAT/C/46/D/399/2009 calls and planned to file a complaint against persons unknown with the Zurich police. The State party also points out that the search and arrest warrant issued by the Congolese authorities on 6 September 2004 was never submitted to ODM or to the Federal Administrative Tribunal. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that the State party’s courts have already violated article 3 of the Convention by wrongly rejecting the evidence provided by the complainant during the asylum procedure, and that consequently the State party should not be allowed to hide behind the argument that this new evidence was not brought to the attention of ODM and the Federal Administrative Tribunal. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, going back to the national courts to submit the new evidence would not lead to a stay of removal unless the authority decides otherwise. 6.5 The Committee recalls its case law,4 according to which the State party must have the opportunity to examine new evidence covered by article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment before it is considered by the Committee as a communication under article 22 of the Convention. In this instance, the national courts have not been able to consider new and important evidence, namely proof of the complainant’s political activity within CERDEC in Switzerland and the resulting threats made against him and his family, and a copy of an arrest warrant dated 6 September 2004 for illegally wearing a military uniform and possession of a weapon of war. The complainant has failed to provide any valid reason for not submitting this evidence, which he knows to exist, to the national authorities during national proceedings. The Committee is therefore of the view that the conditions set forth in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met and that the complaint is therefore inadmissible. The Committee also notes that, in addition to the extraordinary procedure, the complainant also has the right to file a new request for asylum on the basis of the new evidence. 7. Accordingly, the Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 4 6 Communication No. 24/1995, A.E. v. Switzerland, inadmissibility decision of 2 May 1995, para. 4. GE.11-43892