CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 allegedly supporters of President Kabila. He also claims that his wife was raped in front of her children because of his role in, and support for, the Mobutu regime and that he has now been accused of working with the Mouvement de Libération du Congo of Jean-Pierre Bemba and Honoré Ngbanda. He claims that the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have launched an intensive search for him. 2.2 It appears from the copies of decisions attached to the complaint that the complainant applied for asylum in France on 17 September 2002. On 12 September 2003, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected his application, a decision confirmed on 14 May 2004 by the Refugee Appeals Board (CRR). On 16 September 2004, the complainant submitted his first request for a review of his application for asylum. OFPRA rejected this request on 17 September 2004 and the Board confirmed this decision on 18 April 2005. On 3 September 2005, the complainant was given notice to leave the territory. On 25 March 2006, he was given a residence permit denying him the right to work and was again given notice to leave the territory. The complainant submitted a second request to OFPRA for a review of his asylum application, but this request was rejected as groundless on 10 July 2006, after consideration under a fasttrack procedure. He received a deportation order dated 8 August 2006 and lodged an appeal against this decision on 21 August 2006 before the administrative court of Orléans. The latter dismissed his appeal on 25 August 2006 and the complainant appealed this ruling to the administrative court of appeal of Nantes. As the appeal did not stay the judgement, the complainant argues that a negative decision could be handed down at any time. 2.3 The complainant attaches a copy of two medical certificates to his complaint. He also attaches two “wanted notices”, indicating that he is wanted for “subversion and rebellious organization” and for “endangering internal security”, and other supposedly official documents showing that the authorities have been informed of his imminent deportation and have orders to arrest him. The complaint is also accompanied by a handwritten document purporting to be a deposition by someone in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who knows the complainant; this person claims not to know what has happened to him since the authorities began looking for him. The complainant also attaches a copy of a letter dated 22 May 2006 from his uncle to the United Nations Human Rights Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, asking for information on the whereabouts of his nephew, who according to him disappeared after being beaten by armed men. His uncle died in July 2006; the complainant claims he was killed by armed men. The complaint 3. The complainant says he fears for his life if he is returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He claims that his removal would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale of 3 August 2007, the State party challenges the admissibility of the complaint. It sets out to demonstrate that the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the 3