CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 the author received an e-mail from the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers informing him that he could admit himself to the centre at Ter Apel. The author claims that although the Central Agency referred to a shelter, in practice this implied a form of detention and a restriction to his liberty of movement. Moreover, the letter from the Secretary of State for Security and Justice appeared to suggest that he was in fact being invited to voluntarily accept a form of detention for migrants. The offer to which the State party referred to in practice would, therefore, constitute a violation of article 9 of the Covenant and could not be accepted by him. 6.1 In a note verbale dated 9 February 2015, the State party maintained that the author himself interpreted the e-mail from the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers and the offer of accommodation in the light of the letter from the Secretary of State for Security and Justice. The letter, however, was general in nature and was a response to a request for accommodation and subsistence by the author’s counsel on behalf of several persons unlawfully residing in the Netherlands. The author was not offered accommodation in a location where a liberty-restricting measure could be imposed or under the condition of having to cooperate with the authorities on his return to his country of origin. Instead, the Central Agency offered him accommodation in a facility similar to others in which he had stayed. 6.2 The State party also informed the Committee that the author had appealed against the State party’s offer to the Hague District Court. During a hearing on 15 July 2014, he stated that he did not want to accept the offer because he was already renting a room. On 18 July 2014, the Court declared the appeal inadmissible owing to the absence of a legal interest in bringing forward proceedings. 7.1 On 7 May 2015, the author informed the Committee that on 9 February 2015 he had submitted a new request for social support to the Municipality. On 24 April 2015, the Municipality rejected the author’s request because he did not have a residence permit as described in article 8 of the Aliens Act of 2000, which was a requirement to be eligible for social support according to the Social Support Act of 2015. It also noted that he received a monthly benefit of €450. 7.2 On 8 April 2016, the author informed the Committee that on 23 March 2016 the Central Appeals Court had dismissed his appeal concerning his request for shelter to the Municipality (see paras. 2.13 and 2.15) since the Court had concluded that he did not belong to the category of vulnerable people who, in the light of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, required special protection; that he had not made it plausible that his physical and psychic health would be substantially threatened should he be deprived of shelter; that the Executive Board of the Municipality had offered him shelter and benefits from the Excluded Immigrants Fund, in line with its policy; that he failed to provide to the authorities information concerning housing and the cost of rent; and that therefore the reduction of his benefits was not contrary to the law. The author claimed that his situation had worsened and that in practice he would be forced to live on the streets, which represented a risk to his life. Given that background, he asked the Committee to take interim measures and to request the State party to continue paying him a monthly allowance of €450, provided by the Municipality, while his communication was under consideration by the Committee (see also para. 1.2 above). State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 8.1 On 20 July 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. It maintains that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, incompatibility ratione materiae and nonsubstantiation. 6