CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 that in principle, it is not within the scope of the Committee’s competence to evaluate the prospects of success of domestic remedies, but only whether they are proper remedies for the determination of the author’s claims. 7 In keeping with the Committee’s practice, a remedy is shown not to be proper when it has no suspensive effect 8 or when the cost of the procedure is too high.9 4.9 With reference to the complainant’s third application for asylum, the State party argues that the State Secretariat for Migration’s decision of 11 August 2015 did not prejudge the decision on the merits. Firstly, if the fees had been paid in advance, the Secretariat would have considered the application in detail and, secondly, the decision on the merits could have been appealed before the Federal Administrative Court. That fact notwithstanding, the complainant could have contested the interim ruling of 11 August 2015 together with the State Secretariat for Migration’s decision to dismiss the application out of hand of 3 September 2015. However, the complainant only appealed the decision of 3 September 2015. As the case file shows, the fees payable prevented the complainant from exhausting the remedy before the Court. 4.10 The State party argues that this observation carries even more weight in the light of the outcome of the complainant’s second application for asylum, in which the presiding judge (a single judge) handed down the Court’s interim ruling on 19 February 2015 concerning the chances of success of the appeal and the fees payable in advance. In such a case, if the fees are paid, the judgment on the merits can be handed down by the single judge, provided that a second judge concurs (Asylum Act, art. 111 (e)). Failing such agreement, the judgment on the merits is handed down by a panel of three judges (Act of 17 June 2005 on the Federal Administrative Court, art. 21 (1), in conjunction with the Asylum Act, art. 105). The Court’s interim ruling of 19 February 2015 did not prejudge the ruling on the merits. Once again, the case file does not suggest either that the advance payment of fees requested prevented the complainant from exhausting this remedy or that the remedy would have been futile. 4.11 The State party argues that the complainant has not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. In view of the foregoing, the State party invites the Committee against Torture to, primarily, declare the communication to be inadmissible owing to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies; or, alternatively, to set a new deadline if it nevertheless declares the communication admissible. Comments by the complainant concerning the State party’s arguments 5.1 On 7 January 2016, the complainant submitted that he did not agree with the conclusion of the State party that he had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him, in that he had not lodged an appeal against the interim ruling dated 11 August 2015 or requested the ruling to be overturned in his appeal against the ruling of 3 September 2015. The complainant wishes to clarify that the State Secretariat for Migration, in its decision of 11 August 2015, stated that his application for asylum had no chance of success, which is why it requested him to pay 600 Swiss francs in advance before handing down a negative decision. In accordance with article 10710 of the Asylum Act, the interim ruling of 11 August 2015 cannot be appealed separately, as the decision on the advance payment of fees had to be appealed together with the final decision, which was only adopted on 3 September 2015. 5.2 The complainant argues that, consequently, the interim ruling concerning the futility of his application for asylum and the payment of fees in advance could only be appealed in conjunction with the final decision. On 26 August 2015, the deadline for the payment of the fees, the complainant sent a letter to the State Secretariat for Migration requesting a review 7 8 9 10 4 (CAT/C/19/D/52/1996), para. 7.2; P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/23/D/86/1997), para. 6.3; and L.O. v. Canada (CAT/C/24/D/95/1997), para. 6.5. See M.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/14/D/22/1995), para. 4. See Arkauz Arana v. France (CAT/C/23/D/63/1997), para. 6.1. See A.E. v. Switzerland, para. 3. Article 107 of the Asylum Act is entitled: “Contestable interim rulings”. GE.18-01489