CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 Convention for abuse of rights, as the documents produced by the complainant have all the characteristics of forgeries. 4.2 First, the State party wonders why the complainant should suddenly be actively sought in 2006 when he had been in French territory since 2002. Moreover, the documents produced, supposedly issued by departments of the administration of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are all handwritten, which supports the forgery hypothesis. The complainant does not explain how internal administration documents from “the National Intelligence Agency” came into his hands. Even assuming that “wanted notices” are completed by hand, the State party has strong doubts as to the authenticity of the alleged “deposition” of the individual called G.E., as this is an entirely handwritten document on plain paper and the only “stamp” on it is the same as the one found on the other documents produced. Moreover, the State party believes that this document contains expressions that would be out of place in police documents. It draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that domestic courts have expressed similar doubts about documents of the same type giving different dates from those mentioned above. It cites the Refugee Appeals Board, which, in its decision of 18 April 2005, found that “the authenticity of the two documents produced and presented as wanted notices, one of which is dated 2 January 2005, is not sufficiently substantiated”. These doubts were confirmed by the administrative court of Orléans on 25 August 2006, which noted that “spelling mistakes in the head and body of the documents raise doubts about their authenticity”. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In comments dated 18 September 2007, the complainant rejects the State party’s argument that the documents he has produced have “all the characteristics of forgeries” in that they are either entirely handwritten or filled in by hand and contain expressions that would be out of place in police documents, as well as spelling mistakes. Besides the fact that these claims do not prove the documents are forgeries, the complainant explains that the presentation of these documents is not surprising given the problems encountered in the local administration. 5.2 The complainant believes that the reason why he was being actively sought in 2006 when he had been in French territory since 2002 was that there had been an upsurge in the activities of the Congolese police, which shows that he would still be at risk if returned to his country. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 30 January 2008, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. First, it recalls its observations on admissibility and reiterates its request that the Committee declare the communication primarily inadmissible for abuse of the right of submission, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In addition to its observations on admissibility, the State party elaborates on the physical verification of the authenticity of the documents produced by the complainant. In the State party’s view, the only way to obtain such verification would be to make a request through diplomatic channels to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, although such an approach would theoretically be possible, the State party believes that it might be counterproductive if the request did 4