CAT/C/54/D/468/2011 criminal proceedings. In addition, they are unable to leave the country without special authorization. 1 According to these same reports, if a deserter joins an armed group or enemy forces, he may become liable to the death penalty. 2 The complainant left Algeria without authorization although he was supposed to remain at the disposal of the military authorities; he is thus at risk of being arrested, detained and prosecuted on his return to Algeria. The complainant alleges that because of the charges held against him of collaborating with the Islamic Front, he runs a serious and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 3.3 The complainant argues that he has exhausted all domestic remedies. On 17 November 2005, he filed an asylum application in Switzerland. In support of his application, he submitted documents to the authorities that had been supplied by his family in Algeria, including identity documents and an Algerian military police document dated 15 November 2005 stating that the complainant was wanted. On 12 January 2007, the Federal Office for Migration (FOM) rejected his application without examining the merits. The complainant subsequently appealed the decision before the Federal Administrative Court, which rejected his application on 30 October 2007. The complainant then filed requests for reconsideration with FOM, which rejected the requests, by decisions of 20 December 2007 and 26 March 2008, on the grounds of non-payment of procedural costs. A third request for reconsideration was rejected by FOM on 7 May 2009. Ultimately, the complainant filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, which annulled the decision of FOM in a judgement dated 31 March 2009. However, in a judgement dated 7 May 2009, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s request for review. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In its observations on the merits of the communication dated 12 January 2012, the State party contests the merits of the complaint with respect to the complainant ’s allegations concerning possible ill-treatment in Algeria. The State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 thereof, which states that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The State party notes that these requirements have not been met in this case: the complainant does not claim to have suffered torture, and he has explicitly stated that nothing happened to him during the 25 days of his detention in June 2005. 3 Furthermore, the complainant has not been involved in political or religious activities, either in Algeria or Switzerland. 4 The State party further considers that the complainant’s claims are contradictory in several respects. At his first hearing, for example, he maintained that he had been questioned about everyone he had met or spoken to. At the second hearing, however, he explained that all the interrogations had related to his contacts with a single colleague who had spent some time with terrorists. 5 Similarly, at the first hearing, the complainant stated that __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 4/8 The complainant refers to the following documents: United Kingdom: Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report - Algeria, 14 March 2011; United States Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2009, Algeria, 11 March 2010; War Resisters International (WRI), report of 29 June 1998. The complainant refers to United Kingdom: Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report Algeria, 14 March 2011. According to this report, evading conscription is punishable by a 5 -year prison sentence in accordance with Article 254 of the Algerian Military Justice Code 8, and, if the deserters join an armed group or enemy forces, they are liable to the maximum penalty, n amely execution. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 22 December 2005, p. 11. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 22 December 2005, p. 13. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 22 December 2005, p. 10; the transcript of the hearing of 1 December 2005, p. 6; and the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 24 GE.15-11110