CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 Canada to Trinidad and Tobago, who had been in touch several times with the Sacré-Coeur hospital to discuss the complainant’s case. In the letter, the doctor confirmed that the hospital was still able to perform check-ups on all Medtronic pacemakers, despite the earthquake of 12 January 2010. The doctor added that even if the hospital did not have the necessary equipment to perform a check-up on a specific Medtronic model, it would be possible to do so by remote interrogation using an ordinary mobile phone, which would connect any Medtronic pacemaker to appropriate testing equipment located elsewhere. 6.6 The State party adds that the request for judicial review of the second rejection of the complainant’s application for an administrative stay was rejected on 29 April 2010, and that consequently domestic remedies have been exhausted. Following the Committee’s withdrawal of its request for interim measures on 28 December 2009, the State party could therefore deport the complainant to Haiti. However, following the earthquake of 12 January 2010, it had announced a moratorium on removals to Haiti, on humanitarian grounds. This measure applies to all persons who are the subject of a removal order. As a result, the complainant’s removal had been suspended. The State party reiterates its previous submissions that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible and, in the alternative, unfounded. 6.7 On 1 July 2011 the complainant submitted a new letter from the doctor at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, which cast doubt on how easy it was to carry out remote check-ups on pacemakers. The complainant considers that this technical aspect is important, given the situation in Haiti following the earthquake. On 6 and 18 August 2011 the complainant informed the Committee that his deportation was set to take place on 22 August 2011. 6.8 On 10 October 2011 the complainant stated that he had been detained after his arrival in Haiti, and freed following the intervention of a police inspector he knew. On 23 August 2011 he visited the Sacré-Coeur hospital, which confirmed that — contrary to the State party’s claims — Biotronik equipment could not interrogate Medtronic pacemakers. The complainant asked the medical staff to give him a certificate confirming that they could not perform the check-ups, but they refused. The complainant notes that his next medical appointment is scheduled for 24 November 2011 and that if no solution is found he should be allowed to return to Canada to receive treatment.15 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), and that the State party has not contested this. 7.3 With regard to the State party’s allegations of incompatibility with article 1 and of the unfounded nature of the complainant’s allegations, the Committee notes that the 15 10 The complainant, via his counsel, provided no more information to the Committee on this matter. On 27 February 2012, the secretariat requested updated information about the complainant’s situation. On the same day, the complainant’s counsel confirmed by telephone that the complainant had not contacted him since that date. GE.12-43638