CAT/C/46/D/350/2008 of his deportation since 19 August 2008. Although the cantonal immigration offices were still open and a simple administrative check could therefore have been carried out, the complainant had been arrested and detained for four days. Not until 28 April 2009 was it established, thanks to checks performed first by the public prosecutor and then by the investigating judge, that the complainant was legally residing in Switzerland following the Committee’s request for interim protection measures. 6.3 On 19 June 2009, the complainant informed the Committee that his wife’s health had deteriorated, and submitted a medical certificate issued by Harare Central Hospital in Zimbabwe attesting to the fact that she too was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 6.4 On 10 July 2009, the State party commented on the allegations made by the complainant on 19 May 2009. It observed that the complainant had been arrested by the Zurich police during an identity check. Suspected by the police of being in Switzerland illegally, he had been placed in custody for violation of the provisions of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals, and not for the purpose of his deportation. He had been referred to the prosecution service in Zurich-Limmat. On 27 April 2009, the sole judge sitting on the Zurich district court refused to place the complainant in pretrial detention, since execution of his deportation had been suspended following the Committee’s request for interim protection measures on 18 August 2008. The complainant was immediately transferred to the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich, which released him the following day. The cantonal authorities could not in any case have deported him without an order from the Federal Office for Migration. The complainant therefore was not at any time in danger of being expelled from Switzerland, and these details are not relevant to the content of the communication before the Committee. 6.5 On 19 October 2010, the complainant drew the Committee’s attention to his precarious situation, as he was living in an emergency assistance centre under constant threat of arbitrary arrest and of repeated identity checks by the police, and to the financial hardship associated with emergency assistance, which provided a daily living allowance of 10 Swiss francs. The complainant also informed the Committee that although he had applied for a hardship permit (a permit granted on humanitarian grounds) his application could not be considered while the current procedure was before the Committee. He reiterated the fact that the Congolese Government did not safeguard citizens’ rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, citing the recent assassinations of Mr. Armand Tungulu, an activist within the Congolese diaspora in Belgium, and Mr. Floribert Chebeya Bahizire, and the disappearance of Mr. Fidèle Bazana Edadi. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), and that the State party is not contesting the admissibility of the complaint. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 10 GE.11-43878