CAT/C/70/D/819/2017 further notes that, by decision of 13 February 2017, the Court declared the application inadmissible, considering that the claims based on articles 3 and 5 of the Convention were manifestly ill-founded and that the claims based on article 6 were incompatible ratione materiae. 6.5 The Committee considers that, when the European Court bases a declaration of inadmissibility not solely on procedural grounds but also on reasons that include a certain consideration of the merits of a case, then the same matter should be deemed to have been examined within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 6 It is therefore for the Committee to determine whether, in the case in question, the European Court went beyond the examination of the purely formal criteria of admissibility when it declared the application inadmissible on the grounds that the conditions of admissibility laid down in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention had not been met. 6.6 The Committee gathers from the decision by the European Court of Human Rights that the author’s claims based on article 3 and declared insufficiently substantiated did not appear to have been declared inadmissible on purely procedural grounds. The Committee notes that, to the contrary, the ground put forward by the Court inevitably implies a certain, albeit limited, consideration of the merits of the case.7 The Committee therefore concludes that the same matter has already been examined by the Court. 7. 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. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention; (b) State party. 6 7 4 That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the See, inter alia, Mahabir v. Austria (CCPR/C/82/D/944/2000), para. 8.3; Linderholm v. Croatia (CCPR/C/66/D/744/1997), para. 4.2; and A.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/16/D/121/1982), para. 6. See Walmann et al v. Austria (CCPR/C/80/D/1002/2001), para. 8.5.