CAT/C/52/D/525/2012 legislation, the application for revocation is an “extraordinary” remedy and only “ordinary” remedies automatically have suspensive effect.17 He concludes that, unless otherwise expressly provided in law, it cannot be presumed that an application for revocation has suspensive effect. Consequently, this remedy did not provide sufficient guarantee of the suspension of the contested extradition order and did not prevent the complaint from being lodged with the Committee while the application was in progress. 5.2 The complainant reiterates that there is no remedy against the Head of Government’s decision ordering extradition. In his view, the Head of Government’s decree is simply a decision implementing the Court of Cassation’s judgement and, as such, is nonappealable, not a decision establishing rights or a constitutive act. The complainant alleges that he was not notified of the decree in question, even though all administrative acts must be communicated to the persons concerned to ensure their access to remedies, which proves that it was not an administrative act. 5.3 On the merits of the case, the complainant reiterates his arguments on the risk of torture in abstracto in the general Algerian context. He goes on to refer to statements describing acts of violence committed by the Algerian police, which he calls acts of torture, against witnesses or accused persons during the judicial proceedings in this case. Two such statements, made anonymously, were apparently collected by the complainant’s sister, although most of the persons contacted by her reportedly refused to speak for fear of reprisals. The complainant explains that this reflects the climate of fear and the omertà (code of silence) surrounding the ongoing Algerian judicial proceedings. A third person, Y.B., allegedly told the complainant’s sister that he had been deprived of water and food for 48 hours in custody and had been subjected to police pressure. 5.4 The complainant contends that he runs a real, present and personal risk, since it would appear that in this case, as indicated in the statements collected by his sister, the Algerian police has routinely used violence during the interrogations. He further contends that the Algerian investigators seem particularly interested in him because they are allegedly trying to implicate him along with his brother. He claims that he is therefore very likely to be subjected to violence during his interrogation to force him to provide information on his brother, who is wanted by the Algerian authorities. 5.5 Lastly, the complainant repeats his arguments concerning the State party’s failure to fulfil its obligation to ascertain whether the complainant would be at risk of being tortured if extradited to Algeria and to ensure that the incriminating statements were not obtained under torture. In this connection, the complainant adds that the two persons who testified anonymously to his sister were reportedly subjected to violence in order to force them to implicate him. There is thus a “high probability” that the statements of A.B. were made under torture. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether 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. 17 GE.14-05418 He is citing article 597 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that implementation takes place, at the request of the public prosecutor, when the decision is no longer subject to an ordinary remedy or appeal in cassation in the interests of the parties. 7