CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 5.8 The author reaffirms that he was never notified of the decision of the Council of Ministers. He submits that having access to this decision was all the more necessary because, as shown by the documents published by Wikileaks, the Council of Ministers was seemingly acting in response to the orders of representatives of the United States. 5.9 As for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies for the alleged acts of torture to which he had been subjected in Spain in June 2008, the author maintains that he had no opportunity to institute proceedings, as he had been extradited almost immediately and had subsequently turned his attention to the proceedings under way in the United States. He also stresses that the Drug Enforcement Administration report dated 17 June 2008 makes it clear that he had reported having been subjected to ill-treatment a few days before his extradition. In this connection, he points out that he informed the chief of security of the prison orally the day after the incident and that he filed a complaint with a judge of the National High Court of Spain in Madrid on 20 December 2010 and a second complaint with the judge responsible for handling cases of prison violence on 8 March 2011. These complaints were not followed up. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the submission of the communication more than eight years after the author’s extradition to the United States constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a complaint. It also notes that the author and his representatives have had access to the documentation relating to the extradition proceedings at all times, as demonstrated by the fact that the author has been able to exhaust all available domestic remedies to address the same claims as those submitted to the Committee. The Committee notes that the author was extradited in June 2008 and submitted his complaint in July 2016. It also notes that the author asserts that he has been held in solitary confinement since his arrival in the United States and that, from then on until 9 March 2015, he was attempting to vindicate his rights by exhausting all available remedies in the United States. Lastly, the Committee notes that the author asserts that he approached the Committee only after having exhausted the last remedy available before the United States authorities. 6.4 The Committee notes that the claims submitted by the author in proceedings in the United States are substantially the same as those submitted to the Committee with regard to the legality of the extradition decision and his detention and the subsequent possible violations of his human rights in the United States, which, according to the author, were the necessary and foreseeable consequence of his extradition. The Committee also notes that the last remedy in the United States was exhausted on 9 March 2015 and that the author subsequently submitted an implementation impact assessment to the National High Court of Spain on 1 June 2016. In the circumstances, the Committee cannot conclude that there was an unjustified delay and that these claims therefore amount to an abuse of the right to submit a communication. As regards the author’s claims that he was subjected to acts of torture during his detention in Spain, the Committee notes that the author sent a letter to the judge responsible for handling cases of prison violence on 8 March 2011 and has taken no further action since then. The Committee finds that, in these circumstances, the author has failed to provide sufficient justification for the delay of more than five years and that the claim submitted in that connection amounts to an abuse of the right to submit a communication. Accordingly, the Committee finds this claim to be inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (c) of its rules of procedure. GE.18-13666 7