CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 protocol. Furthermore, the complainant stated in writing that the police and the Prosecutor’s Office did not “apply any pressure” on him. He did not object to his interests being represented by the said lawyer. His guilt was proved by the entirety of the evidence, and when determining his sentence, the court took into account information regarding the personality of the accused. All arguments put forward by the complainant at the court of second instance were examined by the court and declared to be unsubstantiated. In particular, his confession was recognized to be “authentic” and in accordance with the rest of the evidence. 8.2 The State party further reiterates that the complainant has won a civil law suit, but that he failed to raise in court the allegations that his complaints to the management of the temporary confinement centre were not reviewed and that he was denied medical assistance. The State party again reiterates that Samara Regional Court granted the complainant 10,000 roubles of compensation for moral damages and that the Prosecutor’s Office repeatedly refused to initiate criminal investigations regarding his excessive detention in the temporary confinement ward. Therefore the complainant’s submission does not contain any new information. Complainant’s further information 9. On 4 June 2013, the complainant submitted that, in its latest submission, the State party does not provide any new arguments, and states that he has no further comments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the communication should be declared inadmissible because in 2010 the complainant submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights on the same matter, which was declared inadmissible. However, the Committee notes the complainant’s explanations that the subject matter of his application to the European Court was different and that it was submitted more than six months after the entry into force of the last domestic court’s judgement relating to the complainant’s detention in the temporary confinement ward. The Committee observes that if the complainant’s application to the European Court had concerned his detention in the temporary confinement ward, the European Court would have declared it inadmissible for failure to meet the six-month deadline established in article 35, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee also observes that, instead of declaring his application inadmissible under that article, the European Court rejected it with the statement that it contained no violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention or its protocols. The Committee therefore concludes that the European Court has not examined the same matter. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded, by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, from examining the present communication. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that since the complainant had been awarded compensation by the civil court, he had lost his “victim” status and therefore his communication to the Committee was inadmissible. The Committee observes that the complainant’s allegations raise issues under the Convention and that the issue of whether he was awarded fair and adequate compensation relates to the merits of his allegations under article 14 of the Convention. The Committee further recalls that any State party that has made the declaration provided for under article 22 of the Convention has 7