CAT/C/39/D/264/2005 Page 7 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has been granted subsidiary protection and that the State party has received no information that might lead it to believe that the threats taken into account in granting the complainant subsidiary protection no longer exist. The Committee also notes that, in his comments, the complainant only addresses the possibility of being returned to Tunisia and his current status in France and does not dispute the fact that he has been granted subsidiary protection and that no judicial proceedings have been brought against him. 8.3 Given that the OFPRA decision grants the complainant subsidiary protection, that a compulsory residence order was issued by the prefect of police on 11 February 2005, and that as a result the order for escort to the border issued on the same date is not enforceable, the Committee finds that the complainant does not run any direct risk of expulsion. 8.4 In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author is in no immediate danger of expulsion and therefore declares the communication inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention as incompatible with the provisions of article 3 of the Convention.2 2 See CAT/C/22/D/62/1996, E.H. v. Hungary, decision of 11 June 1999, para. 6.2.