CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 6.6 The State party invites the Committee primarily to declare the communication inadmissible and, secondarily, to reject it on the merits as groundless. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In a letter dated 20 March 2008, the complainant again asserts that his communication is admissible. 7.2 The complainant notes that the observations of the French Government do not mention that he appealed against the latest decision of OFPRA on 3 August 2006 before the National Asylum Court (the new name of the Refugee Appeals Board) and that a decision on this appeal is imminent. He adds that on 25 January 2008 he filed a statement of supplementary grounds of appeal before the National Asylum Court. This statement presents new documents which only came to the complainant’s attention in November 2007 and confirm the fears he had already voiced to OFPRA and the old Refugee Appeals Board regarding a return to his country. The first document is a summons to appear before the directorategeneral of the prosecution service police for a hearing on 21 July 2007, which he takes as proof that he continues to be regarded as a threat by the powers-that-be. The second document is a communiqué dated 8 September 2007 from a Congolese non-governmental organization which shows that he is still actively sought by the Congolese security services and which carries alarming news about the situation of several people close to him. According to this document, a cousin of the complainant, who is accused of being his accomplice and therefore of carrying out subversive activities, has been missing since his arrest on 1 September 2007; the family of a friend of the complainant has been threatened in an effort to make it reveal the address of the complainant’s wife, who also fled the country in 2004; his mother was strangled to death by unknown assailants in August 2005; and one of his cousins was sexually assaulted by unknown assailants in July 2007. 7.3 The complainant claims that attempts are being made to affect him through the people close to him. The third document is a communiqué dated 6 October 2007 from another Congolese non-governmental organization, which reports, naming the complainant, on “inadequate security for politicians, political activists, economic actors and others”, as well as on the persecution suffered by his relatives, corroborating the information in the second document. Finally, the fourth document, a newspaper article dated 22 October 2007, repeats the facts set out above. The complainant concludes from the foregoing that the reality and seriousness of the risks he would run if returned to his country of origin have been duly established. 7.4 In a further letter dated 9 April 2008, the complainant notes that the National Asylum Court rejected his appeal of 21 March 2008. The Court held that neither the evidence nor the statements made before it allowed the new allegations to be taken as facts or the fears expressed to be considered as justified. The complainant also attaches a letter from an association that helped him draft his comments both to the national authorities and to the Committee, which states that the fears expressed by the claimant appear to be justified. 6