CCPR/C/115/D/1895/2009 Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons that he had been killed by persons unknown. 2.6 On 28 April 2008, the Aliens Litigation Council rejected the author ’s appeal and refused to grant him subsidiary protection status. The Council also noted the contradictions and inconsistencies in his account that had been raised previously by the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and concluded that “the number and nature of the inconsistencies noted in the author ’s successive accounts prevented a finding that the facts upon which he relied corresponded to events actually experienced by him”. 2.7 On 19 June 2008, the author submitted a new asylum application, which was swiftly denied by the Immigration Office. A third asylum application, submitted on the basis of a new element — a summons from a gacaca court — was also rejected pursuant to a decision dated 29 September 2008, which was accompanied by an order to leave Belgian territory with his family by 16 July 2009. On 13 January 2009, the Aliens Litigation Council rejected the author ’s application for a cassation motion and a suspension of the order on the grounds that he had not attended a hearing on 23 December 2008. On 24 February 2009, the Council of State rejected the author ’s appeal against the latter decision on the grounds that the application was manifestly inadmissible, since the Council of State was not empowered to order the suspension or enforcement of a decision of a dispute tribunal such as the Aliens Litigation Council. 2.8 On 5 May 2008 and 28 January 2009, the author submitted two applications for the regularization of his status to the Immigration Office (Federal Public Service for Home Affairs). They were declared inadmissible on 6 June 2008 and 9 June 2009 respectively. 2.9 In its decision of 6 June 2008, the Immigration Office denied the author ’s application for a residence permit because of major and glaring inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the author ’s and his wife’s account in relation to basic information, such as their place of joint residence in Rwanda, the date of their first meeting and the composition of the author’s family, and also significant events, such as the date of death of the author ’s mother. The Immigration Office also noted in its decision that the author had been unable to give the name of the judge hearing the case that he was defending, even though he had participated in three hearings before the court in Cyangugu. 2.10 In its decision of 9 June 2009, the Immigration Office treated the summons from the gacaca court as a new element, but considered that it could only have probative value in supporting a credible and coherent account, which was not the case in the present instance given the contradictions and inconsistencies noted in the previous proceedings. Consequently, the Immigration Office dismissed the author ’s application. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his and his family’s deportation to Rwanda would constitute a violation by the State party of articles 2 (1), 3, 7, 16, 23 (1), 24 and 26 of the Covenant. He maintains that the fact that he received death threats before leaving his country of origin would expose him and his family to a real and imminent risk of torture or death if he returned to Rwanda. 3.2 With regard to article 16, the author maintains that the State party has denied him and his family the right to recognition as persons before the law by refusing them the status of refugees and a residence permit. He further claims that he, his wife and his two minor children constitute a family and that the State party has failed to provide them with protection, in violation of article 23. As to articles 24 and 26, the author 4/7 GE.15-21844