CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 17 June 2009, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. He recalls that he filed an application for judicial review of the PRRA decision. This application having been rejected, no other remedies are available to him to challenge his removal. His motion for a stay of removal pending a decision on his H&C application has been rejected. 7.2 The complainant explains that he failed to pursue his asylum application because he was suffering from post-traumatic stress, which has been confirmed by the certificate issued by a doctor who specializes in such matters. As regards the contradictions in his statements to the Canadian authorities to which the State party refers, he emphasizes that, in the absence of recordings of his interview with the PRRA officer, the Committee should not give any weight to this interview, as it is not possible to prove that there actually were any such contradictions. When asked about his father’s whereabouts, he had answered that he had travelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to participate in the elections. This reply was not inconsistent with any of the information he had given. 7.3 The complainant reiterates that he was tortured in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on account of his father’s political opinions and that, since he has been tortured before, he fears being tortured again. As to the State party’s argument that his father was not troubled in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the complainant contends that, while he himself is of Congolese nationality, his father has a United States passport, which may afford a certain level of protection. This explains why the two were treated differently. If he were to be sent back, he would arrive at the airport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo under a deportation order, a situation which would be much more likely to lead to problems with the Congolese authorities. 7.4 The claimant submits that, when he applied for asylum in Canada, he did not mention that he was the son of Ilunga André Kalonzo. After what he experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo because of his links to his father, he thought that not mentioning these ties would be the best way to ensure his safety. 7.5 The State party has failed to mention that a moratorium on the removal of Congolese nationals is still in force owing to the state of insecurity in the country. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not really changed since the American judge granted the complainant protection because of his potential risk of torture. Detainees continue to be tortured in the country, regardless of whether or not they belong to a political party. In this regard, he refers to the United States Department of State report for 2008 and the 2007 Amnesty International report on the situation in the country. 7.6 Lastly, the complainant informs the Committee that, since his arrival in Canada, he has found a job and that he is the father of a Canadian child. He requests the Committee to find a solution to prevent him from being separated from his daughter and his partner, who is a Canadian resident. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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. GE.12-43835 11