CAT/C/46/D/369/2008 allow the Zurich cantonal authorities to continue with proceedings for granting a humanitarian permit. Additional observations by the State party 7. On 6 January 2010, the State party observed that the competent authorities of the Canton of Zurich could not decide on applications for permits in hardship cases (humanitarian permits) while other proceedings were under way, before the Committee or elsewhere. It pointed out that the grant of a hardship permit is subject to the approval by the federal authorities and is governed by criteria entirely distinct from the conditions stipulated in article 3 of the Convention. Further comments by the author 8.1 In a letter dated 7 January 2010, after being notified of the State party’s position, the complainant asked the Committee to cancel the suspension and to take a decision on his complaint. 8.2 On 13 June 2010, the complainant submitted a second confirmation from his elder brother, who is an active member of CERDEC. His brother underscores that the complainant would face persecution within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention given his former and current political activities as president of CERDEC Switzerland and the family relationship between them. 8.3 In a letter dated 25 August 2010, the complainant asked the Committee to consider his complaint at its next session. He explains that the cantonal authorities of Zurich were disposed to grant him a humanitarian permit as a hardship case, provided that his case before the Committee was settled. In addition, he emphasizes that his current status is precarious. Deliberations of the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9. Before considering any claim contained 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. In addition, the Committee notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication. Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 10.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Republic of the Congo or the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 10.3 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a GE.11-43871 7