CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 denied on 8 January 2007. They had requested a re-examination of their asylum application, which was denied by the Migration Board on 7 June 2007. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that the complainants had exhausted domestic remedies. 7.3 Concerning the claim relating to Ms Njamba’s expulsion in light of her condition as HIV-positive, the Committee recalled its prior jurisprudence that the aggravation of the condition of an individual's physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16.10 The Committee noted the medical evidence presented by Ms. Njamba, stating that she was HIV-positive and that AIDS treatment was not readily available in the DRC. It also noted that the same medical evidence mentioned that Ms. Njamba did not require HIV treatment. In any case, the Committee took note of the detailed information provided by the State party on the availability of HIV treatment in the DRC (see para.6.5 above). In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the aggravation of Ms. Njamba's health which might occur following her return to the DRC is in itself insufficient to substantiate this claim, which is accordingly considered inadmissible. 7.4 With respect to the complainants’ claim under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee found that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint existed and that this case should be considered on the merits. While noting that the State party and the complainants had already provided submissions on the merits of this case, prior to making a decision on the merits, the Committee wished to receive further information on how the current developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo bear upon the decision to deport the complainants from the State party. State party’s submission on the merits 8.1 On 19 May 2009, the State party provided further comments on the merits in response to the questions posed by the Committee in its admissibility decision. With respect to the general situation in the DRC, the State party submits that it continues to be affected by violence and insecurity, especially in the east. In January 2008, a peace conference took place in Goma and a peace accord was signed, however violent clashes continued and in August 2008 there was renewed fighting between the government and rebel groups. General Nkunda called a ceasefire at the end of October 2008, but reports of fighting continued. However, the fighting was mainly concentrated in the North Kivu and South Kivu provinces, and the Ituru district in the Orientale province; all in the east of DRC11. In January 2009, the DRC and Rwanda launched a joint military operation against the Rwanda Hutu rebels of the Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) in North Kivu. Moreover, General Nkunda – leader for the Congrés National pour la Défense du Peuple (CNDP) – was arrested. Furthermore, in March 2009, a peace agreement between the DRC government and the CNDP was reached. 8.2 The State party reiterates that numerous human rights abuses are still being committed by different armed groups in the country, including government soldiers. Torture, abductions and sexual abuse by militia groups and government forces continue to be reported. However, the security and human rights situation is still most precarious in the areas of the DRC which are not controlled by the government. 8.3 The State party submits that under the Aliens Act, an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is, with certain exceptions, entitled to a residence 10 See Communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para.6.7; Communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para.10.2; and Communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v Canada, Views adopted on 16 November 2005, para.7.3. 11 US Department of State, « 2008 Human Rights Report : Democratic Republic of the Congo ». 9