CAT/C/44/D/355/2008 therefore very limited. It also contends that it is impossible to identify the bodies shown in the photos as those of the complainant’s two brothers. 4.9 In his application for review of 1 June 2008, the complainant alleges for the first time that he had taken part in secret operations for the current regime. He was therefore allegedly party to State secrets, which would mean that his illegal exit from the country could place him in danger. The State party believes these allegations to be unsupported by evidence. The complainant’s alleged involvement in such secret operations would seem to contradict the allegation that he had been suspected of supporting the rebels. 4.10 The State party points out that the 2003 Amnesty Act invalidates the complainant’s fear argument. The complainant has not shown that his situation would be any different from that of other persons covered by the amnesty. The State party adds that, even if the complainant’s account was credible, he has not established that he could still encounter problems today. With regard to the complainant’s alleged fear of being prosecuted because he had left the Congo illegally, the State party recalls that the Committee’s jurisprudence is clear on this point: the fear of prosecution and imprisonment is not sufficient grounds for concluding that a person would be subjected to torture. The State party adds that military service is voluntary in the Congo and that it has not even been shown that the complainant would risk imprisonment on his return to the Congo. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the State party considers that nothing in the case file establishes that the complainant would be placed in real and personal danger upon his return to his country of origin. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 26 January 2009, the complainant cited article 65, paragraph 1, of the Swiss Administrative Procedure Act, according to which the appeal authority may, once an appeal has been lodged, waive the required fees for any indigent party on request, provided that his or her case does not seem bound to fail. The complainant stresses that his financial hardship was known to the authorities, since he was permitted neither to work nor to receive social assistance. In his application to the Federal Administrative Tribunal, the complainant implicitly requested that the advance fees be waived or that he be granted partial legal aid. In its interlocutory decision of 19 June 2008, the Tribunal judged that all the evidence that the complainant submitted to it in support of his application for reconsideration was bound to fail. The complainant adds that, under the established case law of the Asylum Review Board and the Tribunal, the payment in advance of the cost of the review procedure is a precondition for the consideration of applications.5 Neither payment in instalments, nor partial payment, nor reduced fees are acceptable. Thus, according to the complainant, failing any major new evidence, he was unable to proceed with his application for reconsideration of the relevant interlocutory decision. As the complainant was unable to produce the sum of 1,200 Swiss francs in time, the Tribunal declared his application inadmissible. The decision to deport him has been final with the effect of res judicata since 11 July 2008, so that the complainant has no further access to domestic remedies. The fact that the final decision was handed down by a single judge has no bearing on the question as to whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. 5.2 On 26 March 2009, the complainant replied to the State party’s comments on the merits. He recalls that his fear of returning to the Congo is based partly on the risk of persecution that he runs following the deaths of his mother and his brothers. Another of his fears is related to his illegal exit from the territory while serving in the army, after 5 6 Article 63, paragraph 4, of the Swiss Administrative Procedure Act. GE.10-42782