CAT/C/29/D/119/1998 page 8 5.9 After making a more general criticism of the State party’s regulations concerning refugees and of the procedures relating thereto, the complainant submits that he has offered proof of his rights and of the risks facing him if returned to Honduras. 5.10 In conclusion, the complainant considers that the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies should be interpreted with reference to the objectives of the Convention against Torture. In this connection, he emphasizes that this principle is furthermore applied by the European Court of Human Rights, which has expressly stated that the European Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted with reference to its ultimate objective of ensuring the effective protection of human rights. 5.11 In a letter dated 18 April 2001, the complainant indicates that on 1 November 2000 he finally decided to submit an application to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the decision not to grant him humanitarian status. However, the court rejected the application for a judicial review on 2 March 2001. Therefore, while maintaining the arguments he set forth previously concerning the principle of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant considers that the arguments originally put forward by the State party are no longer an obstacle to the admissibility of his complaint. The Committee’s decision on admissibility 6.1 At its twenty-sixth session from 30 April to 18 May 2001, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint. It thus ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and noted that the complaint was not an abuse of the right to file a complaint and is not incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 6.2 With regard to the admissibility criterion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as provided for in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), the Committee noted that the proceedings instituted by the complainant had gone on for a period of over four years and considered that any further extension of that period would in any case have been unreasonable. Consequently, the Committee declared the complaint admissible. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In its note verbale of 15 September 2000, the State party transmitted its observations on the merits of the complaint together with those on admissibility. 7.2 The State party recalls, first of all, that it is up to the complainant to prove that he runs the risk of being tortured if he is returned to his country. Referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the work entitled United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook, the State party also recalls that an act of torture involves severe suffering, since intense pain is the main feature that distinguishes torture from other inhuman treatment. Referring to the forward-looking nature of article 3 of the Convention, the State party stresses that the fact that the person was tortured in the past does not necessarily mean that he may be subjected to similar treatment in future. With regard to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party also explains that that there must be a foreseeable, real, present and personal risk of torture,