CAT/C/22/D/62/1996 page 7 that the complaint of the author is unfounded, and that the communication should be considered inadmissible due to the fact that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Counsel’s comments 5.1 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, counsel submits that no national procedures are currently pending, since the author’s application for review of the decision by the Györ Department of the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs was rejected on 6 January 1999. 5.2 Counsel further states that although the legal environment in Hungary concerning the rights to asylum and the refugee determination procedure has undergone substantial positive changes, the case under consideration has not been affected by those changes and the author can still not benefit from protection by the Hungarian authorities. The author submitted one application to the Office for Refugee and Migration Affairs and one to the Capital Court after 1 March 1998, when the new Act on Asylum entered into force. They were both rejected, on the grounds that the author had relied on the same facts as in his earlier applications. Counsel claims, however, that neither the first, nor the second refugee determination procedure examined the treatment and possible punishment in Turkey of rejected and subsequently returned Kurdish asylum-seekers who have allegedly been members of the PKK. 5.3 The Hungarian legal system contains guarantees for the enforcement of the provisions of the Convention and other human rights treaties. Under the new Act on Asylum the author could indeed benefit from protection against refoulement by being granted “authorised to stay” status. That status provides protection to persons who would, for example, face treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The examination of whether a foreigner, if expelled from Hungary, would have to face, inter alia, the threat of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention is carried out ex officio by the Office for Refugee and Migration Affairs. However, in its decision of 20 July 1998 the Office did not mention whether the prohibition of refoulement applied in the author’s case, although in practice it includes a statement concerning the possibility of refoulement in decisions rejecting an applicant for refugee status. 5.4 Although the refugee determination procedure ended with the decision of 6 January 1999, the author is unaware of a new expulsion procedure being initiated in his case. Even if it is determined that he may not be returned to Turkey on non-refoulement grounds, his status and legal situation in Hungary will remain unresolved. The applicant would be issued a certificate entitling him to temporary residence, which is not the same as a residence permit. He would not be entitled to a work permit or to social benefits. This legal “limbo” would in itself constitute inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to the Convention. 5.5 With respect to the State party’s argument that the expulsion order had already been annulled at the time of the author's initial submission, counsel contends that the decision of the Alien Police was communicated to the author