to prove that he was personally in one of the situations for which article 1 (A) (2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees provides. The complainant had subsequently refrained from submitting his case to the Refugee Appeals Commission (CRR), an independent jurisdiction which carries out de facto and de jure reviews of OFPRA decisions, thus acquiescing in the decision taken in this regard. The complainant’s situation had again been reviewed by the Minister of the Interior on 19 December 1997 further to the circular of 24 June 1997 on the regularization of the residence status of certain categories of illegal aliens, which allows prefects to issue residence permits to individuals who claim to be at risk if returned to their country of origin. Once again, the complainant limited himself to stating that he was a former member of the Armed Forces who had deserted from the Algerian Army and been threatened by GIA. For want of details, and in the absence of any justification for his allegations, his application was rejected. Once more, the complainant did not contest this decision in the competent domestic court. Before determining Algeria as the country to which he should be deported, the Prefect of Indre had conducted a further review of the risks he would run if returned to that country. 8.8 In the State party’s view, by the day the deportation order was enforced, the complainant’s situation must be said to have been fairly reviewed without his showing that he would be in serious and present danger of torture or inhuman treatment if returned to Algeria. The State party argues that the complainant continues to fail to offer evidence of such danger to support his complaint to the Committee. 8.9 In the circumstances, the State party was persuaded that the complainant’s appeal to the Committee was but a device to gain time, thus abusing the State party’s tradition, hitherto always respected, of suspending enforcement of a deportation order pending the Committee’s decision on the admissibility of a complaint. 8.10 The State party explains that despite this delaying tactic the Government of France would have acceded to the Committee’s request for interim measures, albeit non-binding ones, if keeping the complainant, a demonstrably dangerous common criminal, in France had not also presented a particularly disproportionate risk to public order and the safety of third parties when set against the absence of any real benefit the complainant could hope to derive from his appeal. It was a fact that, during his first year in France, the complainant had committed aggravated rape, threatening his victim with a weapon, for which crime he had been imprisoned in July 1995 and sentenced by the Loiret Criminal Court to eight years’ imprisonment and a 10-year judicial ban from French territory. He had furthermore demonstrated the firmly rooted and persistent nature of the danger he represented to public order by two violent attempts to escape during his imprisonment, in September 1995 and July 1997, each punished by a term of eight months’ imprisonment. In a situation that was extremely prejudicial to public safety, the State party explains that it nevertheless delayed enforcement of the deportation order long enough for a final review of the complainant’s situation, to see whether he could be kept in France as the Committee wished. Once again, he was found not to have substantiated his alleged fears; in the circumstances, there was no justification for continuing to hold in France an individual who had more than demonstrated that he was a danger to public order and whose complaint to the Committee was quite clearly no more than a ploy to gain time, despite the obvious good faith of the human rights associations that had supported his application. The State party particularly stresses that house arrest would not have provided any guarantee, given the complainant’s 135