CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 the Committee. That request could be reviewed in the light of information and observations submitted by the State party and the comments of the complainant. On 8 April 2014, the complainant informed the Committee that on 4 April 2014, the State party had decided to suspend his deportation to Algeria until further notice. However, from 9 April 2014, the State party put the complainant under police surveillance twice a week. On 28 April 2014, the complainant expressed his fear that the police surveillance could interfere with his right to communicate with the Committee without obstacles. Facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 On 9 February 2014, the complainant submitted a request to issue interim measures to stop his forced removal to Algeria in the context of his case No. 437/2010, which the Committee had declared inadmissible owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.2 2.2 The complainant claims that on 5 December 2012, following the Committee’s decision, the Migration Board decided to reverse its decision of 19 November 2010 and suspended the execution of his deportation order. The complainant therefore reapplied for asylum in Sweden on 27 December 2012. 2.3 On 22 September 2013, his new asylum application was rejected by the Migration Board on almost the same basis as the previous expulsion decision and he was ordered to return to Algeria. The complainant claims that his meeting at the Migration Board did not comply with the usual asylum hearings, as it focused on his work permit, and that the proceedings of the meeting were not reflected in the decision. The complainant appealed the negative decision to the Migration Court. On 29 December 2013, his appeal was dismissed by the Migration Court without a hearing. The complainant appealed this decision to the Migration Court of Appeal, which on 3 February 2014 refused leave to appeal. The complainant maintains that the decision of 29 December 2013 to expel him, as confirmed by the Migration Court of Appeal, is final and cannot be subject to further appeals. 2.4 On 10 February 2014, the secretariat of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights replied to the complainant’s new submission, informing him that if he wished to submit a new complaint, he should substantiate his complaint by describing the recent developments of his situation, including the domestic process he had followed to obtain asylum status in Sweden and specifying the deportation date and the measures taken by the State party authorities to arrange for his deportation. 2.5 On 11 February 2014, the complainant reiterated the facts he had submitted in his first complaint, stated that he had reapplied for asylum and described the domestic remedies he had exhausted. In that connection, he noted that the State party authorities had reiterated the arguments mentioned during his first asylum proceedings, as referred to in case No. 437/2010. The complainant stated that he might be deported at any time if the authorities “catch him”. 2.6 The complainant added that between 2004 and 2005, he was approached in Algeria by members of a terrorist group who requested him to help them in gathering information about his employer’s money transport routes and threatened to kill him if he would not comply. 2.7 The complainant knew that the terrorist group was planning a robbery of a money transport. However, he refused to help them and contacted the police asking for protection. 2 See communication No. 437/2010, B.M.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 November 2012, para. 7. 3