- CAT/C/34/D/195/2002 Page 13 daughter. When he left prison, no immediate attempt was made to deport him although the Administration could have again tried to do so. According to counsel, it was only following a chance incident, in the form of a dispute with security officers, that the deportation order was reactivated. 9.4 In relation to the complainant’s present situation, counsel considers that the State party’s information is incorrect. She states that neither she nor his family in France have any news of him and that his brother in Algiers denies that he is living at the address given by the State party. Even if the complainant was where the State party said, remote though it is, counsel questions why there is no word from him: it could indicate that he is missing. Supplementary submissions by counsel 10. On 14 January 2004, counsel submitted a copy of the decision by the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal of 18 November 2003 overturning the judgement of the Limoges Administrative Court of 8 November 2001 and the decision of 23 May 2001 in which the prefect of Indre ordered the complainant to be returned to his country of origin. Concerning the decision to expel the complainant, the Court of Appeal reasoned as follows: “Considering that [the complainant] claims that he was subjected to torture and, several times, to attempted murder on account of his desertion from the national army because of his opposition to the operations to maintain order directed against the civilian population; that in support of his submissions to the court and concerning the risks of inhuman or degrading treatments to which his return to this country [Algeria] would expose him, he has supplied various materials, and notably a decision of the United Nations Committee against Torture concerning him, which are of such a nature as to attest to the reality of these risks; that these elements, which were not known to the prefect of Indre, have not been contradicted by the minister of the interior, internal security and local liberties, who despite the request addressed to him by the court, did not produce submissions in defence before the closure of proceedings; that, in these circumstances, [the complainant] must be considered as having established, within the meaning of article 27 bis cited above of the ordinance of 2 November 1945 [providing that “an alien cannot be returned to a State if it is established that his life or liberty are threatened there or he would be exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention], that he is exposed in Algeria to treatments contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; that, as a result, his request for the annulment of the decision to return him to his State of origin taken by the prefect of Indre on 23 May 2001 is well-founded”. The State party’s comments on the supplementary submissions 11.1 On 14 April 2004, the State party contended that the question before the Committee was whether refoulement of the complainant to another State violated France’s obligations under the