request not to expel him, the State party violated article 22 of the Convention because the individual remedy provided for by that article was rendered inoperative. He believes that the State party’s attitude under those circumstances amounts to a denial of the binding nature of the Convention. grants that an application for interim relief is admissible only in support of an application in the main action, but argues that such an application could in the present case have been made for damages for the injury suffered as a result of the irregularity. Furthermore, the Prefect who signed the orders of deportation and return to Spain could not have opposed consideration of such an application by the judicial court pursuant to article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.5 3.9 The author also criticizes the French authorities for the late notification of the deportation order and its immediate execution, the sole purpose of which, in his view, was to deprive him of any contact with his family and counsel, to prevent him from effectively preparing his defence and to place him at a psychological disadvantage. He submits that it was consequently impossible in practice for him to enter any appeal between the time of notification of the deportation order and its immediate execution. Author’s comments 5.1 In his comments, the author recalls the facts and procedures explained in the previous communication and reiterates his observations concerning the admissibility of the communication. With regard to the merits of the case, he recalls his claims concerning the personal threat to him of his being deported to Spain, and the torture and illtreatment he underwent. State party’s admissibility observations 4.1 On 31 October 1997, the State party disputes the admissibility of the communication. It indicates that on 13 January 1997, the day on which the deportation order was issued and carried out, it had not known of the Committee’s request for a stay of execution, which was received on 14 January 1997, and it therefore could not have taken it into consideration. It adds that the immediate and rapid expulsion was necessary for reasons of public order. 5.2 With reference to the request for a stay of execution of the deportation order made by the Committee on 13 January 1997, the author disputes the State party’s claim that it had not received the request until 14 January 1997 and therefore did not have time to take it into consideration. In fact, the Government’s representative was informed by fax of the request made by the Committee on 13 January 1997, well before the author was notified of the deportation order late on 13 January 1997. The author adds that he was handed over to the Civil Guard by the French police only on 14 January 1997. During the transfer, the French Government could, according to the author, have contacted its officials and deferred deportation. 4.2 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. If, in view of the nature of the alleged violation, the Committee were nevertheless to consider that the remedies actually sought before the administrative and judicial courts were not useful since they had no suspensive effect, it should be pointed out that other channels of recourse were open to the author. When notified of the deportation order and the order indicating Spain as the country of return, he could have applied to the administrative court for a stay of execution or for effect to be given to article L.10 of the Code of Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal. The author could also, when notified of the two orders, have complained of a flagrant irregularity (“voie de fait”) to the judicial court if he believed that his transfer to Spain had no legal justification and violated a fundamental freedom. According to the State party, such a remedy could have proved effective in view of the rapidity with which the judicial court is required to act and its recognized authority to put an end to a situation which constitutes a flagrant irregularity. 5.3 The author further argues that even if the French Government had not received the Committee’s request until 14 January 1997, it had the obligation, on receiving it, under article 3 of the Convention, to intercede with the Spanish authorities, through diplomatic channels, for example, to ensure that the author was protected against any possible illtreatment. He specifies that he was tortured continuously up to 16 January 1997, long after the French authorities had received the Committee’s request. customary day and at the customary time for such proceedings. If greater speed is required, however, the interim relief judge may allow a summons to be given effect at the time indicated, even on public holidays or non-working days, either in chambers or at his place of residence, in an open hearing”. 5 This article states that “in all cases of infringement of the freedom of the individual, the dispute cannot be taken up by the administrative authority and the judicial courts always have exclusive jurisdiction”. 4.3 The State party further specifies that, in order to obtain a rapid decision, the complainant could have applied to the interim relief judge on the basis of article 485 of the new Code of Civil Procedure.4 It 4 This article states that “an application for interim relief is made by way of summons to a hearing held on the 46