CAT/C/62/D/722/2015 resourceful man, who should be able to manage, even if, as a starting point, he doesn’t have a network in Kinshasa”. 4.13 The complainant was given a new deadline of 28 October 2015 to leave the country, but he did not comply with that request and continued residing in Norway unlawfully. On 21 December 2015, the complainant submitted the present communication to the Committee. On 7 January 2016, the complainant requested a third review of the 2013 decision of the Immigration Appeals Board rejecting his application. That request was rejected on 26 January 2016. On 28 January 2016, the complainant gave notice to the Board that he was taking legal action to quash the 2013 asylum decision. 4.14 The State party submits that it fully recognizes the protections that are needed under the Convention and which are also enshrined in domestic law, specifically article 1 (1) of the Immigration Act. The Norwegian courts are therefore fully authorized to consider and determine complaints regarding alleged violations of the Convention and to quash decisions made by the Immigration Appeals Board. Section 73 of the Immigration Act provides for absolute prohibition of expulsion, where there is a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, etc. Furthermore, the Dispute Act provides avenues for complainants to institute legal proceedings if the decision has been negative. 4.15 As stated above, the complainant could have applied for an “interlocutory injunction” ordering the immigration authorities to stay his expulsion. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found such remedies to be effective for the purpose of article 35. 7 The State party submits that in the present case, such remedies could have brought relief to the complainant within a reasonable time, but unfortunately the complainant did not institute legal proceedings to stay execution of the 2013 decision. The complainant further failed to file an appeal against the decision to expel him. The complainant therefore did not exhaust all effective and available domestic remedies. 8 4.16 The State party also submits that the complaint is not justified as the complainant has failed to prove that he faces irreparable harm. For the purposes of admissibility of article 22 of the Convention, the complainant must establish a prima facie case. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the burden of presenting an arguable case also lies with the complainant. Furthermore, the Committee should give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the State party. In the present case, the complainant had an opportunity to present his case, in person and in writing, before the immigration authorities. He had legal representation which was paid for by the State party. The competent authorities had the benefit of receiving direct responses and explanations from the complainant. 4.17 The country information is compiled by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, which is an independent body within the Norwegian immigration authorities. Its reports are used by other government agencies. The immigration authorities, however, cannot influence the content of those reports. Furthermore, the Centre does not provide an opinion as to whether a specific case should be approved or rejected. 4.18 In the light of its previous experience with asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Immigration Appeals Board has extensive relevant experience. Individual assessments were made by the Board and the application was re-examined on three different occasions. Based on the assessments and submissions mentioned above, the State party submits that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims that the authorities would take a specific interest in him upon his return. 4.19 The European Court of Human Rights has recently concluded that there is no general risk of torture upon return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 9 In Rugira v. the Netherlands,10 the Court concluded that asylum seekers from the eastern part of the 7 8 9 10 The State party refers, inter alia, to Agalar v. Norway, application No. 55120/09, 8 November 2011. In its submission dated 24 June 2016, the State party submits that on 4 March 2016, the complainant instituted legal proceedings before the Oslo district court to quash the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board. The oral hearings were scheduled for 27 and 28 June 2016. The State party refers, inter alia, to Mawaka v. the Netherlands, application No. 29031/04, paras. 41– 43. Application No. 10260/13. 5