CAT/C/23/D/93/1997 page 7 4.15 If, nonetheless, having heard the author’s explanations, the administrative authorities were to consider that the risks in the event of his return had not been established, the author would still however have the possibility of challenging, in the administrative courts, not only the deportation order itself but also the decision on the country of destination. Such an administrative law appeal would, under article 27 ter, have the effect of staying execution, and the deportation order could thus not be put into effect until the court had handed down its ruling. The administrative court has full control of the decision fixing the country of destination and could therefore annul it if it considered the risks proven. In that event, the individual concerned would also benefit from a restricted residence order pursuant to the aforementioned article 28. 4.16 At present the author, who is not subject to any enforceable decision to expel him to his country of origin, cannot plead that he is the victim of a breach of the Convention within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 1, thereof. In any event, if he were to be notified of a decision naming his country of origin as the country of destination, he would have open to him effective remedies which he would have to exhaust before making application to the Committee. Comments by counsel 5.1 K.N.’s counsel submits objections to the State party’s observations on admissibility. A. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the ban from French territory ordered on 14 March 1994 5.2 Counsel points out that it is scarcely reasonable to maintain that the author, who was arrested on 13 March 1994, sentenced to banishment from French territory the day after, immediately detained with a view to the execution of the sentence, and then forcibly sent back to Zaire on 20 March, had had an opportunity to lodge an appeal. Appeals must be lodged in person with the clerk of the Court of Appeal,4 the only exception being that prisoners, i.e. persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment, are given the possibility of entering an official appeal in the prison establishment.5 K.N., who had not been sentenced to any term of imprisonment, was detained, first in premises not under the authority of the Prisons Administration, then in the aircraft and then in Zaire. 5.3 It is, moreover, generally acknowledged that, on the one hand, cases before the Paris Court of Appeal take about eight months to come up for a hearing, and on the other hand, that in cases of the present kind, heard by the Twelfth Division of the Court, the penalties are automatically upheld if not increased. In no circumstances could this be regarded as an effective and adequate judicial remedy since, even if it had been materially possible to lodge an appeal, the appeal entailed no stay of execution and would have done nothing to change the forcible execution of the author’s banishment from French territory. B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies after the author’s return to France in 1995 5.4 The State party maintains that the author could have submitted an application for asylum to OFPRA, could have requested assignment to a fixed place of residence, and has an appeal pending before the Administrative Court.