CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 11.1 In comments dated 19 November 2009, pursuant to the Committee’s decision, taken at its forty-second session, to ask the State party to provide details of the material verification of the authenticity of the documents produced by the complainant, the State party first recalls that the documents produced by the complainant on 3 October 2008 were produced after his application was submitted to the Committee. The State party points out that it was unaware of the documents until that date and contends that they should not be deemed admissible since, when the complaint was submitted, the State party could not be accused of having failed to take them into account in considering the complainant’s asylum application. The State party repeats that it is up to the complainant to submit a new request for a review of his asylum application if he feels he is in a position to provide the Committee with new evidence proving he is at risk. In that light, the State party argues that the Committee cannot admit the documents, which have never been produced to the French authorities, without flouting the subsidiarity principle that is the basis of the efficiency of the international system of protection against torture. 11.2 Secondarily, the State party provides the following details regarding the material verification of the documents produced by the complainant. With regard to the death certificate and burial permit in respect of Mr. G., the State party notes that the handwriting on both documents is the same, yet they were issued by different authorities, namely the Kinshasa general hospital and the city of Kinshasa respectively. In addition, the burial permit was issued on 5 April 2008 against a fee paid on 10 July 2007, i.e., before the date of death, which allegedly occurred on 28 March 2008. The State party explains that discrepancies of this kind are common in forged documents, with the first part being altered but not the last part, which includes the signature. It also points out that the death certificate is signed by a doctor who, it has been established by France’s diplomatic representation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a general practitioner in Kinshasa and does not work at the hospital. Moreover, the term “murder” as the cause of death given on the certificate is never used: the description given by the hospital is usually more objective (death by gunshot, stabbing or assault, for example). With regard to the newspaper clipping, the State party notes that, while such a paper certainly exists, it is well known to be of poor journalistic quality and has little credibility, and the only way to contact it is through an electronic address. The State party also notes that the date of issue on the clipping is printed in a different typeface, which could indicate a montage. Lastly, according to the State party’s diplomatic representatives, it is possible to pay to have an article printed in a newspaper of this kind. 11.3 The State party considers, therefore, that, if the Committee admits these documents, they should be treated with caution in terms of evidentiary value, for the reasons given. In any case, there is nothing in the documents to substantiate either the family ties between Mr. G. and the complainant or Mr. G’s murder, let alone the mistaken identity allegedly leading to the murder. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 12.1 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 the case in question, the Committee has 8