CAT/C/32/D/214/2002 Page 6 3.8 The complainant submits that even if he had committed a criminal offense under German law by adhering to the PKK, this could not absolve the State party from its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 3.9 The complainant claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies. His complaint is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party’s observations on the admissibility of the complaint 4.1 On 11 November 2002, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the complaint, asking the Committee to declare it inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5, of the Convention. 4.2 The State party argues that domestic remedies which need to be exhausted include the remedy of a constitutional complaint, as held by the European Court of Human Rights in several cases concerning Germany1. Although the complainant lodged a constitutional complaint on 22 July 2002, he failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since this complaint was not sufficiently substantiated to be accepted for adjudication. In particular, the complainant failed to state why the challenged decisions infringed his constitutionally protected rights. It follows from the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, dated 30 August 2002, that he “solely object[ed] to the assessment of facts and evidence by the lower courts”. 4.3 The State party submits that domestic remedies cannot be exhausted by means of an inadmissible complaint which patently fails to comply with the admissibility criteria under national procedural law2. In the present case, the State party does not see any circumstances which would justify an exemption from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, given that the constitutional complaint combined with the application for a provisional order, pending the final decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, provided the complainant with an effective remedy. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In his response dated 9 December 2002, the complainant challenges the State party’s interpretation of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 30 August 2002. He argues that the Court explicitly or implicitly ruled his constitutional complaint inadmissible, arguing that it did not distinguish between aspects of admissibility and merits. However, as the complaint satisfied the admissibility criteria of Section 93 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, indicating the basic rights claimed to be infringed as well as the manner in which the lower courts’ decisions violated these rights, it follows that the Federal Constitutional Court did not reject it as inadmissible “but with reference to the merits of the case”. 1 Djilali v. Germany, Application No. 48437/99; Thieme v. Germany, Application No. 38365/97; Teuschler v. Germany, Application No. 47636/99; Tamel Adel Allaoui et al. v. Germany, Application No. 44911/98. 2 See Section 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act.