CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 14 times, examining their case on its own initiative for determination in accordance with temporary legislation concerning aliens and examining the family’s application concerning impediments to enforcement of the expulsion orders. The Committee observes that the complainant has not provided fresh evidence which would cast doubts on the findings of, or the factual evaluation made by, the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board. 8. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant's claims fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility, and concludes, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and Rule 107 (b) of its rules of procedure, that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible.14 9. The Committee against Torture consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] ----- 14 See, for example, H.I.A. v. Sweden, Communication No.216/2002, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para.6.2; H. S. V. v. Sweden, Communication No.229/2003, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para.8.3; R. T. v. Germany, Communication No.242/2003, decision adopted on 24 November 2005, para.7.