CAT/C/39/D/264/2005 Page 4 this was denied on 3 December 1999. On 19 February 2001, the Refugees Appeal Board upheld that decision. 4.2. According to the State party, the complainant was taken in for questioning on 24 April 1996 during an operation to break up a counterfeit document ring; the inquiry revealed that he was involved in forged document-trafficking and that he had close links with the radical Islamist movement. On 28 January 1997, the complainant was sentenced to two years in prison, one of them suspended, and a three-year ban on entry to France. He was in prison from 26 April 1996 to 8 February 1997. 4.3. The complainant was again brought in for questioning on 24 June 2003, pursuant to a rogatory commission from the Paris District Court, for criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist undertaking. On 17 January 2005, the complainant was again questioned following a check and another order for escort to the border was issued on 19 January 2005. He was put in administrative custody and submitted his complaint to the Committee against Torture on 24 January 2005. 4.4. As regards the complainant’s current status in France, the State party notes that he submitted a request for review of his asylum application to OFPRA on 25 January 2005. 4.5. The State party notes that, in its decision of 4 February 2005, OFPRA found that the complainant was not covered by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. OFPRA considered that his activism was driven, not by political motivations but rather by a desire to create the conditions required for subsidiary protection measures and to block his removal. 4.6. OFPRA nevertheless took account of the de facto situation created by the complainant and his activism, whatever the underlying motives, and in the same decision granted him subsidiary protection for one year, renewable, under article 2.II.2 of Act No. 52-893 of 25 July 1952, on the right to asylum, as amended by the Act of 11 December 2003. 4.7. On 11 February 2005, a decision was handed down denying the complainant a residence permit on the grounds that his presence in France constituted a threat to public order. The 19 January order for escort to the border was revoked the same day in light of the changed circumstances, and a fresh order for escort to the border was issued by the prefect of police. At the same time the prefect of police also issued a compulsory residence order since removal to Tunisia was no longer possible in view of the OFPRA decision to grant subsidiary protection. 4.8. That same day the complainant lodged an appeal against the order for escort to the border with the Paris Administrative Court. In its judgement of 4 March 2005, the Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s request for the decision naming the country of destination to be annulled on grounds of the risk entailed in returning to his country of origin. The State party points out that the Court found that the complainant could not be returned to Tunisia by virtue of the subsidiary protection he enjoyed and of the compulsory residence order issued on 11 February 2005. 4.9. The State party emphasizes that, even though the complainant is subject to a removal decision based on the serious public order implications of his behaviour, that decision is now