CAT/C/35/D/250/2004 Page 8 also maintained that impediments against the expulsion of the complainant could not be totally ruled out. On 17 June 2004, the Government rejected the complaint’s last request for cancellation of the expulsion order. The Migration Board informed the Government on 11 June 2004 that no impediments existed against expelling the complainant. 4.9 The State party challenges the admissibility of the complaint since it refers to a matter that has been examined under another procedure of international investigation and settlement (article 22, paragraph 5 (a)). The European Commission for Human Rights already examined the “same matter” and declared his application inadmissible. The case before the Commission concerned the same complainant, the same facts, and the same substantive rights as the case before the Committee. 4.10 The State party further alleges that the complaint is inadmissible for the complainant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies (article 22, paragraph 5(b)), since he did not appeal the judgment of the District Court of Uppsala of 7 January 1997. It adds that an appeal to the competent court of appeal, and, if necessary, a further appeal to the Supreme Court constitute domestic remedies that the complainant must exhaust. There is no basis to consider such remedies as “unreasonably prolonged” or “unlikely to bring effective relief”. The remedy available to the complainant through the regular appellate process cannot be replaced by a petition to the Government seeking a cancellation of the expulsion order. Such a petition is an extraordinary remedy that could be considered to be equal to a petition for mercy. Furthermore, no special circumstances exist that would absolve the complainant from his obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.11 The State party adds that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly ill- founded (article 22 and Rule 107 (b) of the Rule s of Procedure), because the complainant failed to meet the basic level of substantiation, for purposes of admissibility. New communication submitted on behalf of the complainant and complainant’s allegations on the admissibility of the case: 5.1 On 14 December 2004, the complainant’s newly appointed counsel submitted a new communication on his behalf. According to this complaint, the State party omitted to clarify that: a) On nine different occasions, Swedish authorities officially declared that there were impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order; b) The Uppsala District Court and the Svea Court of Appeals considered that the complainant was a political refugee in Sweden and that impediments against the enforcement of the deportation order did exist; c) Following the ruling of the European Commission of Human Rights, the State party granted a Temporary Residence and Work Permit to the complainant for six months in November 1998; d) Legislation other than that invoked by the State party is relevant for the complainant’s case;