CAT/C/45/D/344/2008 to the complainant by the cantonal authority in this case, the granting of emergency assistance does not contradict any obligation that might arise under article 22 of the Convention. The State party further recalls that emergency assistance is granted on request and is designed to provide anyone in a situation of hardship with the essential means of living a life of human dignity. The State party concludes that, insofar as the author considers that the benefits granted are not enough for a decent life, he may bring the matter before the appeal bodies, which was what he did on 6 November 2008. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 16 February 2009, counsel informed the Committee that he had no particular remarks to make on the position of the State party, as all the arguments relating to article 3 of the Convention had been set out in the initial communication. However, counsel sent the Committee a letter written by the complainant’s uncle, A.D., attesting to the searches made for his father. The uncle explained that he had found the father’s body in the Aného mortuary on 7 February 2006. According to staff at the mortuary, the body was left there on 15 November 2005 by unknown persons. The letter also attests to the fact that soldiers in civilian clothes harassed the tenants in the complainant’s house. 5.2 On 15 June 2009, the complainant raised the issue of the interim measures requested by the Committee. The two appeals filed by the complainant against being placed in the Vennes emergency support centre (in the canton of Vaud), where he received only benefits in kind, were rejected by the Department of Home Affairs on 11 May 2009 and by the Vaud cantonal court on 21 April 2009. The cantonal court decision stated that, in accordance with domestic legislation, the complainant had no right to social assistance.1 He was not, however, illegally in the country and could receive emergency assistance. The complainant did not appeal against this decision in the Federal Court because of the Court’s recent case law dating from March 2009, in which it confirmed the principle that emergency assistance stems from the fundamental right to minimum means of subsistence income and cannot be likened to a coercive measure preparatory to expulsion. Before the Committee, the complainant maintains that, contrary to what has been laid down by the domestic courts, emergency assistance is a coercive measure and that its main purpose is to induce asylum-seekers to leave Switzerland. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not examine any communication without being assured that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that the State party recognizes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and therefore finds that the complaint complies with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 6.3 With regard to the allegations under article 22 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the emergency assistance system to which he is 1 GE.10-46944 Article 49 of the Law on assistance for asylum-seekers and certain categories of foreigners (LARA). 7