CAT/C/60/D/465/2011 decision of the Swedish Migration Board on 11 February. He is currently in hiding in Sweden. 2.9 The complainant experienced high-level stress and depression in view of the possibility of his deportation to the Russian Federation. Later, when the stress eased, he recalled that he had participated in the dissenters’ march, a series of opposition protests, in March and April 2007 in St. Petersburg. During the demonstration he was stopped by policemen who checked his identity documents and recorded something. The complainant claims that his mistreatment in July 2007 is related to his participation in the opposition protests. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his deportation to the Russian Federation would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention because he would be at risk of being tortured and persecuted upon return in the light of the mistreatment he suffered in the past and his complaints about the actions of the police. In support of his allegations, he refers to his medical reports and reports on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation, “where torture by the police is a common practice”. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 12 August 2011, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility. It states that the complainant arrived in Finland on 18 March 2009 and requested asylum. On 3 May, the Immigration Service rejected his request and ordered his return to the Russian Federation. This decision was upheld by the Administrative Court of Helsinki on 9 November 2010. 4.2 The State party notes that, according to section 22 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (586/1996), appeals should be lodged within 30 days of notice of the decision. Although the date of notice to the complainant does not appear in the documents, according to the provision, he would have had time to lodge his appeal at least until 9 December 2010, i.e., within 30 days of the Administrative Court’s decision of 9 November. As the complainant claims that he learned about the decision on 19 November, the deadline for filing an appeal would have been extended accordingly. However, he never sought leave from the Supreme Administrative Court to appeal. Moreover, he has not, at any stage of the domestic asylum proceedings, requested the courts to suspend his deportation. 4.3 In the light of the foregoing, the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, and, hence, his complaint should be declared inadmissible. Complainant’s comments on admissibility 5.1 On 3 October 2011, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. He submits that the Administrative Court’s decision of 9 November 2010 was read to him on the telephone by his lawyer, who informed him that the appeal had been rejected and that the deportation procedure had been launched and would not be suspended. The lawyer also informed him that no further appeals could be submitted from Finland, owing to the imminent character of his deportation and the lack of time for submission of an appeal. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible for him to file an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court (“the second appeal”), and it would be ineffective to file such an appeal from the Russian Federation after his deportation. 5.2 The complainant therefore challenges the State party’s argument that he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. Furthermore, he recalls that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply if domestic remedies are unavailable or unlikely to bring effective relief. He insists that his case falls under this exception2 and believes that, by registering his complaint, the Committee has given due weight to his 2 The complainant does not explain whether he considers that the domestic remedies were unavailable or unlikely to bring effective relief in his case. 3