CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights against Belgium, invoking a violation of articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (registered under No. 20232/16), which was declared inadmissible on 2 June 2016 by a single-judge decision (see paras. 2.17 and 4.3 above). The Committee observes the State party’s argument that the same matter had already been considered since the European Court of Human Rights had deemed the case inadmissible for reasons related to the merits of the case rather than procedural grounds (see paras. 4.1–4.4 above). The State party argued that the European Court of Human Rights generally concluded inadmissibility if a defendant State did not exercise jurisdiction extraterritorially, while the State party asserted that formal procedural grounds for the admissibility of the application had been met (see para. 6.5 above). The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that the European Court of Human Rights declared the complainant’s application inadmissible as the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met, without providing any explanation as to the specific reasons that had led it to such determination. The complainant held that such a “blanket dismissal” could not be considered as an examination of the case in the context of article 22 (5) (a), and that it was impossible to determine whether the case had been declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights for procedural reasons only or also on substantive grounds (see paras. 5.1–5.5 and 7.2–7.4 above). The Committee observes that the complainant’s application before the European Court of Human Rights appears to refer, except for the claims under article 10 of the Convention, to the same facts related to torture and lack of investigation as those raised in the present communication (see paras. 2.17 and 5.5 above). In this context, the Committee recalls that it is bound by the complainant’s allegations of facts and evidence, while retaining discretion to assess legal claims stemming from the complaint. 10.4 While the Committee notes that the European Court of Human Rights, in its decision, does not set forth detailed reasoning for its finding of inadmissibility, the Committee observes that application No. 20232/16 was submitted to the European Court of Human Rights by the same complainant, was based on the same facts, and related predominantly to the same substantive rights as those invoked in the present communication. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the same matter has been examined by another international procedure within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a), which it declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention have not been met in the present case and that the complaint is thus inadmissible. 10.5 In the light of the above finding, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine separately the State party’s arguments that the communication is also inadmissible as the domestic remedies remain pending, or that the complainant’s claims are manifestly illfounded. 10.6 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention; (b) State party. That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the 15