CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 Last but not least, the complainant submits that the authorities in Côte d’Ivoire are still looking for him. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 2 July 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. After explaining the applicable legislation and facts on which the present complaint is based, the State party submits that pursuant to paragraph 1, section 22, chapter 12, of the Aliens Act, the decision to expel the complainant will become statutebarred on 10 September 2018. That means, firstly, that the decision to expel him will no longer be enforceable after that date and that the complainant will then no longer be under any threat of expulsion. Secondly, a new application for asylum and a residence permit, and the reasons put forward in support thereof, will be re-examined in full and a negative decision by the Migration Agency will be subject to appeal to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. The State party, therefore, urges the Committee to consider the admissibility and/or merits of the present complaint well ahead of 10 September 2018. 4.2 On admissibility, the State party submits that it is not aware of the present complaint having been, or being, subject to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party also does not contest that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case. Irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s examination of the issues relating to article 22 (5) (a) and (b) of the Convention, the State party submits that the complainant’s assertion that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Côte d’Ivoire fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. Thus, the State party argues that the complaint is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.3 As to the merits of the case, the State party submits that to constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire and, in particular, (b) the personal risk of the complainant being subjected to torture, following his return to the country of origin. 4.4 In relation to the general human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the State party recalls that Côte d’Ivoire is a party to the Convention14 and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It adds that, according to the United States of America Department of State report on human rights in Côte d’Ivoire, in August 2013, Ivoirian authorities provisionally released 14 pro-Gbagbo defendants, including Pascal Affi N’Guessan, Gbagbo’s former spokesman and the former president of the Ivorian Popular Front. 15 The State party further submits that the current human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire does not, in itself, suffice to establish that the general situation in the country is such that the complainant’s expulsion would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Hence, it contends that his expulsion to Côte d’Ivoire would only entail a breach of the Convention if he could show that he would be personally16 at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The State party argues that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims that he would run such a risk. 4.5 The State party submits that in the present case, the Migration Agency conducted two interviews with the complainant before refusing his asylum claim. The interviews were conducted in the presence of the complainant and an interpreter, whom the complainant confirmed that he understood well. During the asylum interview, which lasted for approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes, the complainant’s legal counsel was also present. The legal counsel also asked the complainant questions during the interview and submitted 14 15 16 4 Although Côte d’Ivoire acceded to the Convention on 18 December 1995, its compliance with the obligations under the Convention has not yet been examined by the Committee. A list of issues prior to the submission of the initial report of Côte d’Ivoire was adopted by the Committee at its fifty-ninth session (7 November–7 December 2016). United States Department of State, “Côte d’Ivoire 2013 human rights report”, available at www.state.gov/documents/organization/220316.pdf. Emphasis added by the State party.