CAT/C/37/D/288/2006 Page 5 Neither did he meet the conditions of the non-refoulement clause of section 15 of the Immigration Act, which provides the same protection as article 3 of the ECHR and article 3 of the Convention. Following the decision of the UNE the complainant presented a “request for renewed assessment”. The UNE saw no reason to reverse its former decision. In the State party’s view the complainant’s case was assessed thoroughly, by both the UDI and the UNE. 4.5 On 16 June 2005, the complainant requested a temporary injunction pursuant to chapter 15 of the Norwegian Enforcement Act, to suspend the implementation of the administrative decision to deny asylum or residence permit on humanitarian grounds until the hearing of his main case before the courts. He has not to date brought a main case before the Norwegian courts. On 13 September 2005, the Court of First Instance (Oslo byfogdembete) denied the injunction request. The decision was made after a full day of oral hearings with extensive statements from the complainant, as well as examination of five other witnesses’, including the complainant’s brother. The Government called as an expert witness the regional advisor from Landinfo (Country of Origin Information Center), who has personal and up to date knowledge of the human rights situation in Mauritania. It also called the executive officer from the UNE responsible for the complainant’s case, who testified about how the case was assessed and decided by the immigration authorities. 4.6 The complainant appealed his request for an injunction to the Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett), which confirmed the first instance decision on 8 December 2005. It concluded that after reviewing the facts of the case that the complainant would not face a personal risk of persecution if he were to be returned to Mauritania. The complainant did not contest this decision by appealing to the Appeal Committee of the Supreme Court. The complainant was represented by counsel throughout the court proceedings. 4.7 The State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. In its view there is no substantial risk that the complainant would be persecuted if returned to Mauritania. The mere allegation of membership of FLAM, and the vague allegations that he was tortured during his arrests in 1996 and 2001, do not amount to an arguable claim under the Convention. The complainant has failed to provide any detailed information of the alleged incidents or any medical evidence which supports his claim. According to reliable resources, there is no reason to assume that an ordinary member of FLAM would risk persecution contrary to the Convention upon return. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 July 2006, the complainant commented that the State party has no means of receiving information on the human rights situation in Mauritania directly and that it only relies on outside sources for such information. He submits that the Norwegian courts have only overruled administrative decisions regarding asylum applications on a few occasions, and that this raises a concern about the effectiveness of judicial remedies in the State party. That the courts decided against his application, despite the evidence of an expert with direct experience on the human rights situation in Mauritania, shows the Norwegian court system’s failure to provide for an effective remedy. As a consequence of the State party’s limited knowledge of the situation in Mauritania, and given that the complainant’s brother was awarded refugee status in Sweden, following a fact-finding mission conducted by Sweden, the complainant requests the Committee to gather its own information regarding the factual basis of the complaint, under article 20 of the Convention.