CAT/C/57/D/593/2014 were still major problems. As the complainants had already experienced similar problems in Romania before, that went beyond a simple theory or suspicion. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 5 (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 5 (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The Committee notes that, on 2 January 2013, the complainants were arrested based on a European arrest warrant. Based on that warrant, and on the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board of 25 February 2014, both complainants were extradited to Romania to serve the sentences imposed on them pursuant to the court verdict. The Committee notes that all arguments presented by the complainants do not specifically relate to allegations of violations under the Convention, as the complainants only refer to claims relating to their conditions of detention, without describing these conditions. The Committee considers that the complainants have failed to present substantiation of any of their claims under article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, it concludes that the communication is manifestly unfounded under rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure and, therefore, inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainants and to the State party. 7