CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 elements related to the merits of the case. 18 The Committee therefore considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention from examining the communication. 9.2 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. In that regard, it notes the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the complainant failed to file a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of The Hague Court of Appeal of 5 July 2016. It also notes, however, the complainant’s submission that a cassation appeal would not have been an effective remedy in his case as it would not have had suspensive effect and would not have prevented his extradition. The Committee further notes that the State party has neither refuted the complainant’s claim in this regard nor provided any information that would suggest that a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court would have had suspensive effect in the complainant’s case or that he could have applied for a provisional measure to prevent his extradition pending appeal. The Committee therefore concludes that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the communication. 9.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he will not be afforded a fair trial in Rwanda. It also notes that the fact that a complainant may face trial in a judicial system that does not guarantee the right to a fair trial may constitute an indication of a risk of torture to which State party authorities should give consideration in their decisions on removal of a person from their territory. 19 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party authorities examined the complainant’s claims in this regard and found that he was not at risk of not being afforded the right to a fair trial in Rwanda. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not provided any additional specific information that would indicate that he would be exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if removed to Rwanda. It therefore finds that the complainant’s claim in this part of the complaint is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 9.4 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that extradition to Rwanda would expose him to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated this claim for the purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares this part of the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 10.2 In accordance with article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Rwanda. The Committee observes, at the outset, that in cases where a person has been expelled prior to the consideration of the complaint, the Committee assesses what the State party knew or should have known at the time of expulsion. Information obtained after the person’s removal is relevant only to the assessment of what the State party actually knew, or could have deduced, about the risk of torture at the time the complainant was expelled. 20 10.3 In order to determine whether or not there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Rwanda, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to 18 19 20 10 See S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/59/D/691/2015), para. 7.5; and Mozer v. Switzerland (CAT/C/57/D/584/2014), paras. 9.4–9.5. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 29 (d). Sogi v. Canada (CAT/C/39/D/297/2006), para. 10.8; Tebourski v. France (CAT/C/38/D/300/2006), para. 8.1; Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003), para. 13.2; Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.2; and L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.2.