4.7 Moreover, the State party claims that during the hearing, the complainant admitted that none of his immediate family had problems with the authorities (with the exception of his brother-in-law, in 1995), and that he personally had had no problems since his detention in 1992. This again indicates that the complainant does not attract adverse attention from the authorities. 4.8 The State party observes that the complainant has a general fear of harm as a result of civil conflict in Algeria; this fear however is not sufficient to bring him under the Convention’s protection. The State party adds that the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs considered information received from the French and United Kingdom authorities to the effect that they were unaware of any instance in which a person returning to Algeria from those countries had met with violence upon return. The State party also refers to recent reports that indicate that the human rights situation in Algeria has improved. 4.9 The State party also invokes DIMA’s opinion, which noted that the Algerian authorities are aware that many citizens who travel to foreign countries make refugee applications to escape from the civil strife and adverse economic situation in Algeria. It is noted that a mere asylum application by an Algerian citizen in another country is not a reason for the Algerian authorities to attempt to persecute or torture that person. 4.10 The State party notes that by letter of 25 January 2000, the complainant was advised that arrangements had been made for him to leave Australia on South African Airways flight SA281, departing Sydney for Johannesburg at 9.40 p.m. on 26 January 2000. He was accompanied by three escorts on the flight to South Africa. Further, the State party adds that the complainant’s current whereabouts are unknown to Australian authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 The Committee has noted the State party’s information that the return of the complainant was not suspended and that it had not received in time the Committee’s request for interim measures under rule 108, paragraph 1, of its rules of procedure. The complainant was returned to Johannesburg on 26 January 2000. He stayed in South Africa for some time, but his current whereabouts are unknown. 5.2 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that the State party has not contested that domestic remedies have been exhausted. The State party further submits that the complainant has not substantiated his case for purposes of admissibility. It refers to the Committee’s Views in G.R.B. v. Sweden,a in which the Committee held that “A State party’s obligation to refrain from forcibly returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture is directly linked to the definition of torture as found in article 1 of the Convention”. The State party also notes that the Committee stated that the burden is on the author to present an arguable case. The State party explains that this means establishing a factual basis for the 136