CAT/C/47/D/368/2008 court, on the grounds that since the order of dismissal filed on 28 September 2007 had not been challenged, it had become final. 8.4 On 12 May 2009, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta ruled that the case should be dismissed, once the order issued by the Provincial High Court of Cádiz in Ceuta regarding the notification of the injured parties (relatives of the deceased) of the proceedings had been duly carried out and the dismissal order of 28 September 2007 had not been challenged. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee observes that, although the State party initially argued that the complaint was inadmissible because domestic remedies had not been exhausted, on 28 May 2011 the State party informed the Committee that Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta had dismissed the case on 12 May 2009. Consequently, the Committee considers that there is no obstacle to consideration of the merits of the complaint under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that the events in question took place in Moroccan waters, that the persons who were picked up were left in an area very close to the shore, that the Civil Guard officers did not puncture Mr. Sonko’s and his companions’ dinghies, and that Mr. Sonko was aided by the Civil Guard officers, who performed resuscitation techniques on him. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that an undeniable cause-effect relationship exists between Mr. Sonko’s death and the actions of the Civil Guard officers, inasmuch as Mr. Sonko was in good health when on the patrol boat but, by the time he reached the beach, was in a poor condition and subsequently died. 10.2 The Committee recalls that it is not its task to weigh the evidence or to reassess the statements made regarding the facts or the credibility of the relevant national authorities. The Committee further observes that the State party’s and the complainant’s versions of the circumstances surrounding these events differ, but that both parties agree that Mr. Sonko and the other three swimmers were intercepted by a Civil Guard vessel and were brought on board alive. They also both assert that, upon reaching the beach, Mr. Sonko was not well and that, despite the efforts made to revive him, he died. 10.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 2, where it notes that a State party’s jurisdiction includes any territory where the State party exercises, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, de jure or de facto effective control, in accordance with international law.3 This interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction is applicable in respect not only of article 2, but of all the provisions set forth in the Convention, including article 22.4 In the present case, the Committee observes that the Civil Guard officers exercised control over the persons on board the vessel and were therefore responsible for their safety. 3 4 GE.12-40869 General comment No. 2 of the Committee against Torture on implementation of article 2 of the Convention by States parties, Official Documents of the General Assembly, sixty-third session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 16. See communication No. 323/2007, J.H.A. v. Spain, decision of 10 November 2008, para. 8.2. 9