CAT/C/22/D/62/1996 page 6 for asylum to the Györ Department of the Affairs which was denied on 10 July 1998 contain any new elements with respect to party points out that an application for Office of Refugee and Migration on the grounds that it did not his former application. The State review of that decision is pending. 4.8 As to the expulsion order issued against the author, the State party explains that prior to the completion of the first judicial review procedure, the Alien Police Department of the National Headquarters of the Border Guard examined the case of the author ex officio. It annulled the expulsion order issued by the Alien Police Department of the Györ Border Guard Directorate, on the grounds that the Directorate had acted in error since, pursuant to the Aliens Act, expulsion cannot be ordered against aliens who apply for asylum unless their applications have been rejected in a final decision. The State party underlines that the expulsion order was annulled before the date of the author’s initial submission to the Committee. 4.9 On 24 May 1997, following the final rejection of the author’s application for asylum, the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs informed the Alien Police authorities that despite the fact that the author had not been granted asylum, the Office considered that at present the author could not be returned to his country of origin on the basis of the provisions of section 32(1) of the Aliens Act. According to those provisions no alien shall be refouled or expelled to a country or to the frontiers of a territory where he would be threatened with persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion, or to the territory of a State or frontiers of a territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that the refouled or expelled aliens would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading punishment. On the basis of the statement of the Office for Refugee and Migration Affairs, the Alien Police authorities issued a temporary certificate allowing the author to stay in the country. 4.10 The State party underlines that, apart from refugee status, the law provides other possibilities for an alien to stay in Hungary. In the present case, although denied asylum, the author was accorded temporary permission to stay in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. The State party admits that the author’s comments regarding deficiencies relating to the regulation of temporary permission to stay were in fact well founded, but draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that, since the submission of the author’s complaint, new legislation has been adopted in that respect. Act CXXXIX on Asylum, which entered into force on 1 March 1998, contains provisions on the admission of refugees and the recognition of persons under temporary protection in accordance with European standards. Governmental Decree No. 24 and 25 (II.18) Korm. of 1998 on the implementation of the Act contains detailed rules relating to, inter alia, persons under temporary protection and persons authorized to stay, and defines the various forms of benefits and assistance for aliens applying for asylum, recognized refugees, persons under temporary protection and persons authorized to stay. 4.11 In conclusion, the State party submits that the domestic legal framework of Hungary contains guarantees for the protection of the rights of asylum-seekers in accordance with European standards and the international obligations undertaken by Hungary. In addition, the State party considers