CAT/C/39/D/264/2005 Page 5 devoid of all legal effect. The State party argues that the subsidiary protection and the compulsory residence order shield the complainant from implementation of any order for his removal to Tunisia. 4.10 The State party explains that, were OFPRA to withdraw subsidiary protection, the complainant would be able to challenge that decision through the Refugees Appeal Board. Any administrative decision to revoke the compulsory residence order may be challenged through the administrative courts. 4.11 The State party cites two decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (Nos. 42216/98 of 14 November 2000 and 65730/01 of 18 January 2005), in which the Court found that the issuance of a compulsory residence order meant that the applicant was no longer in immediate danger of removal. The Court pronounced the applications inadmissible. The State party cites another two similar cases adjudged in the European Court (Nos. 30930/96 of 7 September 1998 and 53470/99 of 10 April 2003) and argues that, mutatis mutandis, the same principles can be applied to the present complaint. 4.12 In the State party’s view, therefore, the complainant enjoys strong long-term protection from any risk of treatment that might contravene article 3 of the Convention as a result of the implementation of an expulsion order, and that he consequently cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 10 May 2006, counsel conceded that their client no longer ran any risk of being deported to Tunisia now that he had been granted subsidiary protection. Protection had been granted on 4 February 2005 for one year and would be renewed provided it was not lifted by OFPRA. 5.2. On 7 August 2006, the complainant informed the Committee that he wished to maintain his complaint and on 6 October 2006 submitted comments on the State party’s version of the facts. He points out that nowhere does the 28 January 1997 judgement state that he had “close links with the radical Islamist movement”, that those allegations are unfounded and that the allegations of “criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist undertaking” were not upheld by the Court. 5.3. The complainant argues that the decision of 11 February 2005 to deny him a residence permit was taken on the grounds that his presence in France constituted a threat to public order, yet OFPRA had noted, in its decision of 4 February 2005, that “his links with the radical Islamist movement had been driven, not by political motivations but rather by a desire to create the conditions required for subsidiary protection measures”. These points attest to an implicit recognition by the State party that the threat to public order is not a real one and that the State party should therefore not have refused to regularize his administrative status. 5.4. As to the admissibility of the complaint, the complainant argues that the protection granted by France is illusory and that, contrary to the State party’s contentions, he runs a real risk of being sent back to Tunisia. Revocation of the compulsory residence order is a mere formality and could be carried out at any time, while an appeal to the Administrative Court against such a decision has no suspensive effect. In addition, even though he has the right to