CAT/C/55/D/642/2014 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, given that the same matter has already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s observation that his application was not examined by the European Court, as its inadmissibility decision stated only that his application “did not disclose any appearance of violation” and that its limited reasoning does not allow the Committee against Torture to conclude that the European Court gave sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. In addition, he submits that his complaint before the Committee refers to his detention on 28 November 2014 by the State party’s authorities for his imminent removal to his country of origin, that such removal would result in his separation from his wife and child, and that those facts were not considered by the European Court. 8.3 The Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that it shall not consider any complaint from an individual under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4 The Committee considers that a complaint has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the other procedure related or relates to the same matter within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a), which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts, and the same substantive rights. 5 8.4 The Committee observes that the present complaint raises claims under article 3 of the Convention, mainly in relation to the alleged risk of torture to which the complainant would be subjected if removed to the Russian Federation. In this connection, the Committee considers that the complainant’s detention on 28 November 2014 by the State party’s authorities does not constitute a relevant new fact that could lead it to conclude that his complaint before the Committee and his application before the European Court of Human Rights raise different matters. Accordingly, in the light of the information contained in the case file, the Committee concludes that complainant’s application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 17 November 2014 concerned the same person, was based on the same facts, and related to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present complaint. The Committee therefore proceeds to examine whether his application was examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the sense of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 8.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that the European Court of Human Rights declared the complainant’s application inadmissible as it considered that “the material in its possession … did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols”. In the light of the information provided by the parties, and in the particular circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was not solely based on mere procedural issues, but on reasons that indicate a sufficient consideration of the merits of the case. 6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the claims raised by the complainant regarding the alleged risk he would face if deported to the Russian Federation are inadmissible in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention. 8.6 In view of the above, the Committee considers that the requirement of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention has not been met in the present case. 4 5 6 See, for example, communication No. 305/2006, A.R.A. v. Sweden, para. 6.1. See, for example, communications No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 25 November 2005, para. 6.8; and No. 479/2011, E.E. v. Russian Federation, decision adopted on 24 May 2013, para. 8.4. See, for example, communication No. 479/2011, E.E. v. Russian Federation, paras. 8.2-8.4. 7