CAT/C/34/D/195/2002 Page 12 his country of origin was not likely to give rise to a “substantial danger” within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 8.11 As to the complainant’s current situation, the State party explains that the Algerian authorities, from whom the French Government requested information, reported on 24 September 2003 that he was living in his home district of Algeria. Comments by counsel 9.1 Counsel submitted comments on the State party’s submission on 29 October and 14 November 2003. On the binding nature of requests for interim measures, counsel recalls that in two cases5 where States parties to the Convention carried out deportations contrary to the Committee’s opinion, the Committee found that action further to its terms of reference, which could include the rules of procedure under which suspension had been requested, was a treaty obligation. 9.2 Concerning the reasons put forward by the State party for enforcing the deportation order, counsel maintains that the complainant trained as a fighter pilot in Poland. Furthermore, according to counsel, his criminal act and his two escape attempts a year earlier did not mean that he would not have rebelled against bombing operations on civilian populations: counsel describes the considerable unrest in the Algerian army at the time, as illustrated by the escape of an Algerian lieutenant to Spain in 1998. As for the State party’s contention that the complainant had not shown he was in serious danger of being tortured if he were returned to Algeria, since past torture not sufficing to establish the existence of a real and present danger in the future, counsel contends that the complainant actually was tortured, that modesty made him very reticent about the after-effects on his genitals, that he had to be treated for related psychiatric problems, and that the administrative court had been told only very vaguely about the torture, while a medical certificate had been submitted to the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal. As to the future, counsel submits that the possible charges against the complainant, aggravated by the facts of his desertion and flight to France, made the danger of torture, by the Algerian military security in particular, sufficiently substantial to be taken into consideration. The State party argues that the dangers alleged by the complainant had already been reviewed thoroughly and fairly under domestic procedures; counsel acknowledges that OFPRA rejected the complainant’s application for refugee status - on what grounds counsel does not know, since the application was declined while the complainant was in prison. Counsel also acknowledges that the complainant did not refer his case to the Refugee Appeals Commission (CRR). She points out that the Limoges Administrative Court likewise refused to overturn the decision establishing Algeria as the country of return although the interim relief judge had suspended the decision. Lastly, the complainant’s more detailed submission to the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal should have urged the administration to greater caution and, thus, to suspend his deportation. 9.3 Concerning the danger represented by the complainant and the risk to public safety, counsel maintains that he committed a serious act, but did not thereby pose a serious risk to the general public. On 18 March 1999, the complainant married a French citizen and had a