CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 10 about him. However, this allegation is not based on any evidence and is not credible since the “unidentified” persons who thus “threatened” the complainant’s sister nevertheless gave her the attestation of employment. In addition, the documentary evidence shows that the complainants were not in the State of Hildago during their three-month visit to Mexico in 2002. In various applications to the Canadian authorities, they stated that they had been staying in Cuautla (Morelos) during the period in question, in other words, the very place where they claim to have received death threats. 7.5 As regards the allegation that the PRRA official did not give sufficient weight to the CISR decision in the case of Mrs. V.V.J., the State party reiterates that this is not “evidence” capable of corroborating the complainants’ allegations. 7.6 The State party reiterates that the complaint is premature and inadmissible in respect of Mrs. R.S.N. and Ms. T.X.M.S., since they are not the subject of an expulsion order. 7.7 In the same note verbale the State party requested the lifting of the interim measures relating to the complainant, because it has not been established that he would suffer irreparable harm following his deportation to Mexico. In addition, the request for interim measures made on 19 May 2006 only concerned the complainant. If Mrs. R.S.N. and Ms. T.X.M.S. were also covered by the request for interim measures, the State party maintains that this request should be withdrawn in respect of all the complainants for the reason given above. 7.8 The State party maintains that the requests for interim measures are not appropriate in cases, like the present one, which do not reveal any manifest error on the part of the Canadian authorities and which have not been characterized by procedural abuses, bad faith, manifest bias or serious procedural irregularities. Submission of the complainant 8.1 In a letter of 12 August 2007 counsel asked the Committee to grant interim measures to Mrs. R.S.N. and Ms. T.X.M.S., given the fact that their visitor status would expire on 15 August 2007.1 8.2 In a letter of 2 September 2007 the complainant reaffirms that, contrary to the claims of the Canadian Government, the asylum application filed by Mrs. V.V.J. was based mainly on the persecution that he had suffered and which also affected family members. In the asylum application there were no other grounds than the fact that she had been persecuted for reasons having to do with the activities of her father-in-law. 8.3 As to the complainants’ address in Mexico in 2002, they reiterate that they were staying in the State of Hidalgo. If that was not clear from some of the forms that they had filled out, it was a question of an involuntary error, owing to the fact that they did not consider it to be their real address. 1 The Committee did not accede to this request. On the other hand, the interim measures benefiting the complainant were maintained.