CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 had the possibility to appeal the solitary confinement decisions to the justice division, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Tribunal, and that he only used such remedies with regard to the solitary confinement decisions of 26 April and 4 August 2011. The Committee further notes that the complainant exhausted all available domestic remedies with regard to the decision of 26 April 2011 but that he did not do so for the decision of 4 August 2011, as he only appealed it to the justice division. The Committee considers that the fact that the complainant appealed the decision of 26 April 2011 demonstrates that he had the necessary information to exhaust all available domestic remedies as regards the decision of 4 August 2011, but also all subsequent solitary confinement decisions, i.e. those dated 21 March 2013, 21 and 29 July 2014, and 25 November 2014. The Committee notes that the complainant does not provide any information to the contrary, and therefore concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.4 Regarding the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment and torture during his transfer between the Canton of Vaud and the Canton of Ticino on 26 June 2014, the Committee notes the State party’s statement that the Public Prosecutor investigated those allegations, requesting the University of Varese to examine the causes of the complainant’s injuries. The Committee also notes that, in view of the conclusions of that examination, the Public Prosecutor decided on 25 August 2014 to suspend the investigation. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant did not exhaust all available domestic remedies because he did not appeal that decision. It further notes the author’s submission that he did exhaust all available domestic remedies, but also notes that he did not provide any documentation or information to substantiate that affirmation. Therefore, the Committee considers that the information available does not enable it to conclude that the complainant exhausted all available domestic remedies and that his allegations of illtreatment and torture during his transfer between Vaud and Ticino are inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 8.5 As regards the complainant’s allegations of torture during his transfer between the Cantons of Ticino and of Bern on 5 January 2015, the Committee notes the State party’s statement that it “ignores” whether the complainant appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Bern dated 22 June 2015 confirming the Public Prosecutor’s decision of nonconsideration. The Committee also notes the complainant’s assertion that he appealed that decision to the Federal Tribunal45 but that on 17 July 2015 he received a letter from the Tribunal indicating that his envelope only contained blank papers and that his appeal could not, therefore, be considered. The Committee notes that the State party does not contest these allegations. However, the Committee also notes that the information provided by the complainant does not enable it to conclude that he had indeed submitted an appeal in due form. Therefore, the Committee considers that this claim is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 8.6 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant did not appeal the Public Ministry’s decision of non-consideration dated 29 April 2015, in relation to his allegations of torture and ill-treatment following his refusal to go to the Embassy of Turkey. The Committee also notes that the information provided by the complainant does not enable it to conclude that he had indeed submitted such an appeal. Therefore, the Committee considers that this claim is inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 8.7 Concerning the complainant’s removal to Turkey and his submission regarding article 3 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the State party’s assertion that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as the appeal of the 45 The date of the appeal has not been provided. 15