CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 bring effective relief to the victim. The complainant elaborated on those issues in his comments of 11 September 2017, and the State party acknowledged the exhaustion of all domestic remedies by the complainant in its response dated 6 August 2018 (see p. 6 above). In addition, the Committee has found that if the State concerned does not raise any objections on the point, it will assume that all available remedies have been exhausted.33 9.5 Moreover, the Committee has stated that when multiple remedies are available, it is sufficient that one of those remedies is exhausted without success. The victim is not required to pursue multiple ways to seek a remedy, such as through both criminal and civil proceedings, which would have been directed essentially to the same end, in order to file a petition before the Committee. Therefore, the criminal complaint filed by the complainant is sufficient and adequate in order to meet the procedural requirements for the submission of a complaint to the Committee, which do not require civil proceedings to be exhausted as well. 9.6 Article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention requires complainants to exhaust effective remedies, as the Committee has stated that it is within the scope of its competence to evaluate whether the domestic remedies are appropriate remedies “for the determination of the author’s claims”.34 The complainant argues that the civil pecuniary proceedings that have been initiated against Belgium would have been inadequate for the purpose that the complainant was seeking at the time, that is, to see those responsible for his ill-treatment brought to justice. Furthermore, only “effective remedies” must be exhausted. The case law in regard to torture requires bringing the matter to the public authorities’ attention so that it can be investigated and the State prosecutor can bring charges, exactly as the criminal suit filed by the complainant aimed to do; for such serious offences, the complainant is therefore not required to sue for damages because damages alone are not sufficient to constitute an effective remedy.35 9.7 When acts of torture are involved, the Committee may find a communication admissible – even when the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies – if a State party’s courts have been informed and are aware that a person has been tortured. According to article 12 of the Convention, States parties have an obligation to initiate ex officio prosecutions wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed, that is, even if the victim does not press charges or initiate proceedings. 36 9.8 In conclusion, the civil proceedings that have now been initiated by the complainant are neither a procedure of international investigation or settlement under article 22 (5) (a), nor a remedy that must be exhausted under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 10.2 The Committee recalls that, under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that examinations by the European Court of Human Rights constitute such a procedure.37 10.3 The Committee considers that a communication has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the procedure relates or related to the same matter within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a). The same matter must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights. 38 The Committee observes that on 4 April 2016, the complainant 33 34 35 36 37 38 14 See, for example, M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 6.2. See, for example, M.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/14/D/22/1995), para. 4. See, for example, Kroumi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2083/2011), para. 7.4. See, for example, Gallastegi Sodupe v. Spain (CAT/C/48/D/453/2011), para. 6.4. See, for example, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, para. 6.7. N.B. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/56/D/577/2013), para. 8.2.