CAT/C/41/D/257/2004 Page 6 not been transmitted to the State party. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the above application could not be seen as “being” or “having been” considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. Therefore, it was not precluded by this provision from examining the communication. 6.2 On the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that the State party had challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that all available and effective domestic remedies had not been exhausted. However, it also noted that the complainant responded that he had made a request for review to the Prosecutor-General who rejected his request, and he had provided proof of this request as well as the Prosecutor-General’s decision. In these circumstances, and taking into account that no additional information was adduced by the State party to support its argument, the Committee concluded that it was not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from considering the communication. 6.3 The Committee noted the complainant’s allegations that the police officials used disproportionate force against him and that he was unable to obtain redress within the State party. It also noted the State party’s contention that the police officers in question had acted lawfully, within their competencies defined by the Law on the Ministry of Interior, and that their acts do not constitute “torture” within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee considered however, that this claim had been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. The Committee concluded that the communication was admissible and invited the State party to present its observations on the merits. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 27 February 2008, the State party provided its submission on the merits. It disputes the facts as recounted by the complainant and submits that having fallen asleep on one of the tables in the lobby of the Murgavets hotel the complainant was woken up twice by hotel personnel and asked to leave. He refused to leave and became violent, hitting tables and chairs and throwing down ashtrays. For this reason, the police were called. Two police officers arrived and asked him to show his identity card. He refused and became violent uttering curses, using offensive language and violently resisting the police officer’s attempts to remove him from the hotel. They had to use necessary force to restrain him in compliance with article 78, para. 1, sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Law on the Ministry of Interior. The complainant was handcuffed led out to the hotel and ordered to get into the patrol car. As he again resisted violently, necessary force was used to put him in the car, whereupon he was taken to the police station. He continued to behave aggressively in the car. In light of his behaviour, the police drew up a statement of the incident, in accordance with the Decree on Combating Petty Hooliganism. The complainant refused to sign it and scribbled all over it. The police officers reported the case to the Regional Police Directorate of Chepelare from which they received instructions to transport the complainant to the same Directorate. While being driven from the police station to the Regional Police Directorate, the complainant again tried to resist violently, inter alia, breaking the windshield of the police car in the process, and had to be restrained.