CAT/C/56/D/545/2013 7.2 The complainant further maintains that violence, repression and corruption are prevalent in Armenia. The complainant asserts that, on 1 March 2008, armed forces, police and criminals killed 10 peaceful protestors upon the orders of government authorities, that nothing has changed since then and that those in power continue to murder, arrest and violate the rights of their opponents. The complainant also claims that, during a peaceful assembly in June 2015 organized to protest an increase in electricity rates, the authorities arrested 237 people by using violent force. According to several sources, police officials and other individuals who were possibly affiliated with the police and “sponsored criminal groups” beat protestors and journalists at the scene of that protest, and destroyed journalists’ video recorders.3 Soon, the Armenian authorities will again use force against protestors who are arrested for their civil or political views.4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae because, as the complainant acknowledges, he has a short-term residence permit in Switzerland and is not currently at risk of being removed by the State party to Armenia. Nevertheless, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the permit he and his wife currently have is linked to her employment and may be withdrawn if she loses her job. The Committee considers, however, that under article 3 of the Covenant, a complainant cannot be entitled to protection under a particular legal status such as asylum if such protection can instead be guaranteed through other kinds of legal arrangements. In the present case, the Committee observes that, having obtained a residence permit, the author is no longer at risk of removal. The question regarding the duration of his wife’s employment and the residence permit linked to it is hypothetical at this stage and cannot constitute a basis for finding the communication admissible. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, because the complainant is not presently at risk of being removed to Armenia by the State party, the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and is therefore inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention.5 8.3. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 3 4 5 8 The complainant cites “18 people affected during Yerevan police crackdown of sit-in”, News.am, 23 June 2015. Available from http://news.am/eng/news/273216.html. The complainant states that this claim is supported by current events regarding tensions in Armenia. See communication No. 264/2005, A.B.A.O. v. France, decision adopted on 8 November 2007, para. 8.4. In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the State party’s assertions that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded or due to lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.