CAT/C/49/D/437/2010 5.2 With regard to the general human rights situation in Algeria, the complainant notes the reports mentioned by the State party and maintains that the actual situation is worse, in particular in places of detention, where torture and ill-treatment are rampant. 5.3 He reiterates his allegation that he fears that he would be subjected to torture and killed either by the Algerian authorities or the terrorists inside the prison. The motive of the Algerian authorities is that he was sentenced for being a member of a terrorist organization and responsible for the death of a police officer; and the motive of the terrorists is that they consider him to be a traitor and responsible for the death of two terrorists. 5.4 The complainant maintains that the summonses, as well as the statements made by his father to the police, are true. With regard to the judgement, the complainant argues that the State party breached confidentiality when it asked the Swedish Embassy in Algeria to verify the judgement through an Algerian lawyer. He notes that Algerian citizens working at the Embassy are under surveillance by security services and some of them are working for the security services. Therefore, the complainant is now on the list of the security services. He argues that the State party does not have any right to send a document of the file of an asylum seeker to his country of origin and he does not understand why further investigation was not done in 2008 when he provided the document, but rather on 25 July 2010. The complainant questions the veracity of the document and claims that the date of 25 July 2010 must be a mistake, that it is not an official document as the lawyer’s or Embassy’s stamp are missing and that without his power of attorney, a lawyer does not have access to a confidential judgement. 5.5 With regard to the delay in applying for asylum, the complainant notes that he felt safe once he arrived in Sweden and that he did not have the necessary information about asylum procedures. In conclusion, the complainant notes that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the State party are not sufficient to show that his communication is inadmissible or without merit. He reiterates that he faces a real risk of torture and degrading treatment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 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. 6.2 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted; this rule does not apply if it is established that the application of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party that the decision regarding the complainant’s expulsion became statutebarred on 24 October 2012, therefore it is no longer enforceable and the complainant is no longer under a threat of being expelled to Algeria. Moreover, he now has the possibility of submitting new asylum applications which will be re-examined in full by the Migration Board, with a possibility of an appeal to the Migration Court and further to the Migration Court of Appeal, if necessary. The Committee is of the view that there is nothing to indicate 6