CAT/C/39/D/264/2005 Page 6 appeal to the Refugees Appeal Board against any OFPRA decision to lift subsidiary protection, such an appeal likewise has no suspensive effect. 5.5 On 9 January 2007, the complainant commented that he is obliged to report to the Saint-Denis Prefecture at regular intervals. This shows that the French authorities are preparing to deport him as soon as the current period of subsidiary protection ends on 4 February 2007. Additional State party observations 6.1 On 23 March 2007, the State party informed the Committee that the subsidiary protection measures applied in the complainant’s case had been enacted by Parliament in December 2003 and entered into force on 1 January 2004. They are in line with the provisions of article L.721-1 of the Code of entry and residence of aliens and the right to asylum, provisions which may be viewed as anticipated implementation of European Council directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, on the status of refugees and subsidiary forms of protection. 6.2. The State party recalls that this protection is granted by OFPRA, which, subject to oversight by the Refugees Appeal Board, may withdraw protection by formal decision where there is reason to believe that the threats warranting such protection no longer exist. Subsidiary protection gives rise, subject only to the requirements of public order, to automatic issuance of a one-year temporary residence permit, which is renewable as long as the OFPRA protection is in place. 6.3. Thus application of the subsidiary protection regime is not equivalent to an interim measure under rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. On the contrary, the State party says, it is a measure taken after consideration of the merits of an asylum application. 6.4 The State party emphasizes that in the present case it has no information that might lead it to believe that the factors taken into account in granting the complainant subsidiary protection no longer apply. It therefore repeats that the complainant cannot claim the status of victim insofar as he is in no danger of removal from French territory. Additional comments by the complainant 7.1 On 2 May 2007, the complainant reiterates that the revocation of subsidiary protection is a mere formality. He claims that giving him subsidiary protection did not resolve the question of his residence in France, since the French authorities refused to give him a residence permit on the grounds that his presence allegedly constituted a threat to public order. As a result he is not entitled to work or to receive social benefits. This legal limbo in itself constitutes inhuman treatment. 7.2 In support of his claim the complainant submits two letters from NGOs, one dated 1 July 1999 and the other 25 January 2005, a letter dated 8 January 2007 from the social worker at Hôpitaux de Paris, a letter dated 23 February 2007 certifying that he receives no family allowance, and other documents relating to his social situation. He also submits a copy of his police record.