CAT/C/59/D/691/2015 inadmissible for reasons related to the substance of the claim and not solely on procedural grounds. The State party invites the Committee to contact the secretariat of the European Court of Human Rights in order to clarify that issue. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that it had already been reviewed by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee notes that the complainant confirmed that she had submitted an application to the European Court, in which she referred to the risk of torture and ill-treatment that she would face if she was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee also notes that, by letter dated 10 February 2015, the European Court informed the complainant that the acting President of the section in charge of reviewing her application, sitting in a single judge formation, had decided not to grant the requested interim measures to prevent her removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and had declared her application inadmissible insofar as the admissibility criteria established in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention had not been met. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the European Court’s decision dated 10 February 2015 provides very limited information and does not enable the reader to identify the reasons why the Court, sitting in a single judge formation, declared the application inadmissible or to assess whether the Court conducted an examination of the substance of the complainant’s case, which leads the complainant to assume that no such examination had taken place. 7.3 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) of the Convention, which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights.17 7.4 The Committee notes that on 10 February 2015, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single judge formation, declared inadmissible the application submitted by the complainant against the State party, and that the application referred to similar facts as those raised in the present communication. The Committee also notes that in its decision, the European Court indicates only that the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met, without providing any specific reason that had led the Court to reach its conclusion. 7.5 The Committee considers that in the present case, the succinct reasoning provided by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision of 10 February 2015 does not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court examined the complainant’s application, including whether it conducted a thorough analysis of the elements related to the merits of the case.18 17 18 See, for example, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, para. 6.8; E.E. v. Russian Federation, para. 8.4; and M.T. v. Sweden, para. 8.3. See communication No. 584/2014, Mozer v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, paras. 9.4 and 9.5. 7