CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 Further submission by the author 8. On 13 July 2013, the author submits that he still has no papers and “has no valid legal grounds” for remaining in the Russian Federation and therefore, under the domestic legislation on the status of foreigners, may be deported at any time on the basis of an administrative decision of the Federal Migration Service. He reiterates that his latest request for temporary asylum, submitted after his communication to the Committee, has been rejected. He further submits that his appeals of that decision have also failed and provides copies of the relevant court decisions.14 Further submission by the State party 9. On 18 October 2013, the State party confirms that the author’s appeal against the decision to refuse his application for temporary asylum had been reviewed and rejected by the Dzerzhinskiy District Court in a judgment of 23 January 2013 and that the St. Petersburg City Court rejected the appeal against that judgement on 15 May 2013. It further submits that the Supreme Court has not reviewed a cassation appeal against the Dzerzhinskiy District Court judgment. The State party submits that, on the basis of the court decisions, it appears that in his application and appeals the author had put forward the same arguments as in 2009, namely that the first instance court had agreed with the decision of the Federal Migration Service and had not found any grounds to declare it illegal. Accordingly at the time of the State party’s submission there were no grounds to grant temporary asylum to the author on the territory of the Russian Federation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that there was no decision regarding the deportation of the author to Afghanistan and that therefore the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. That submission raises the issue of whether the author of the communication can be regarded as a “victim” for the purposes of articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. In that regard the Committee takes note of the author’s explanation that, on the basis of Federal Law No. 115 in conjunction with section 13 of the Law on refugees the officials of the Migration Service could at any time take a decision to deport him and that the only reason that that had not been done was the Committee’s request for interim measures. The author also submits that there is no procedure for the judicial review of such a deportation decision that would suspend the deportation. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted those submissions. The Committee further notes that the author has alleged that if deported to Afghanistan he would be facing a real and personal risk of torture. The Committee observes that the facts as presented raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant 14 The author provides a copy of a judgement of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court, dated 23 January 2013; a copy of his appeal of that judgement, from February 2013; and a copy of the appellate ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court rejecting his appeal, dated 15 May 2013. 9