TRANSLATION THE LAVV The applicant, concerning wttom an e.xpulsion order was issued by the Minictry of the Interior on 16 April 1985, submits that if thi ; measure is carried out, he, is liable on return to Sri Lanka to be. subjected to treattnent prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention . This provision states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading trealment or punishment " The Commission notes its constant case-law that the Convention cloes not guarantee any right of residence or right of asylum in a State of which one is not a naticnal (cf. No. 1802/62, Dec . 26.3 .63, Yearbook 3 pp . 463. 479) . Expulsion is not, a.; such, included in the matters covered by the Convention (No. "'256175 . Dec . 1.0.12.76, D .R . 8 p. 161 and No . 11933/86, Dec. 14.4 .86, D.R. 46 p . 257) . It follows that an expulsiori measure is riot in itself contrary to the Convention . The Commission neverthele.ss recalls its constant r.ase-law that the expulsion of a person could, in exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, where there is sericus reason to believe that the individual would be subjected to treatment prohibited by this provision in the country to which he was expelled (No . 8581/79, Dec. 6.3.80, D.R. 29 pp. 48, 62) . However, the Commission is not required to express an opinion as to whether such exceptional cireumstances exist in the present case and whther there is reason to believe that the applicant wculd be subjected to tre,atment prohibited by Artiele 3 of the Convention, because under Article 26 of the Convention, "the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally reeognis:d rules of international law" . In this case : the applicant has not pmved that he produced before the domestic courts thc docurnents he submitttted to the Commission, including an arres[ warrant issuecl by thejuclicial authorities if Mallakam, which is !ntended to establish that his fears of persecution in the event of his deportation to Sri Lanka are well-founded . The applicant cannot, therefore, be regarded es having ez hausted the domestic remedies . Furthermore, an exainination of the case as it has been submitte4 has disclosed no spscial circumstamx which might, according to the generally re,cognised rules of internationel law, have absolved the applicant from exhausting the domestic remedies . The Commission does not consider it necessary to express an opinion on the question of whether there were also other remedies that the applicant should have exhausted in order to comply with the requiretnent set forth in Article 26 ol'the Convention . 235 It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition of the exhaus-t tion of domestic remedies and that his application must be rejected under Article 271 para. 3 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission ! DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . 236