CAT/C/49/D/425/2010 impartiality were not respected. He notes that the intervention of the First Secretary is a repercussion for his insistence on receiving his original documents back after his first request for a Swedish visa was rejected on 18 June 2007. He notes that the First Secretary’s comments about his character, the insulting manner in which it was written and the prejudices it contained influenced the Migration Board in its decision. The complainant also notes that the State party has failed to explain why the official of the Migration Board who interviewed him was not the person who took the decision. 5.2 The complainant reiterates that the situation in Algeria is not stable, in particular given the events following the uprisings in other Arab countries. The complainant reiterates that he had to sign a confession that he was part of an Islamic group, and that in his letters to the President he exposed the implication of the army in massacres of civilians, as well as the assassination of President Boudiaf by the Department of Intelligence and Security and the Department’s implication in the attacks on the Paris commuter train. 5.3 The complainant further notes that the photos are proof of his ill-treatment and that he was not able to obtain a medical certificate due to the threats he received, in particular as the medical certificate would have had to be issued by a forensic doctor working at a public hospital. That would have entailed that the police, which has a station in each public hospital, would have been informed of his visit. 5.4 With regard to the confiscation of his passport, the complainant notes that the last stamp in his old passport was dated November 2005, one month before it was confiscated, and that had it been renewed this would have been done within the regular period of one month. However, his new passport was obtained on 5 June 2006, six months after the confiscation. He further notes that he waited for a considerable period before leaving the country on 24 August 2007 because he feared that the authorities would discover his new passport and that he would be arrested. 5.5 With regard to his freedom of movement, the complainant notes that the Department of Intelligence and Security could not lay any charges against him and that it thought that with the confiscation of his passport he would be blocked from leaving Algeria. Given that the authorities did not have any knowledge of his new passport, that he was not wanted and that he made his trips discreetly, he was able to travel freely without raising suspicion. He further reiterates that during his first trip to the Schengen zone, he did not feel he was in danger, as he had not yet received the police convocation of 20 March 2008. 6. On 10 May 2011, the complainant informed the Committee that the procedure for his expulsion to Algeria had started. On 20 July 2011, the complainant informed the Committee that, on 13 July 2011, fearing deportation to Algeria, he voluntarily left Sweden for Egypt. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering a 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, paragraph 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8