5.5 The author further claims that the residence restriction imposed upon him amounted to inhuman treatment prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant. He supports this claim by referring to the opinion of Mr. Pär Borgå, a Swedish doctor working for the Centre for Tortured Refugees, where the author received treatment. In this connection, the author refers to alleged harassment by the police. to the Committee's decision in communication No. 58/1979,3 where the Committee considered that the interpretation of domestic law was essentially a matter for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned. The State party contends that in the present case, compelling reasons of national security required that exceptions be made with regard to the right to review of the decision. According to the State party, the communication is therefore unsubstantiated with respect to article 13 and should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee's decision on admissibility 6.1 During its forty-seventh session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It observed that the same matter was not being or had not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee considered that the author had not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claim under articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant, and that his claims under articles 9 and 13 of the Covenant were incompatible with these provisions. 4.9 The State party forwards a copy of the text of the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in a similar case,4 which was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded and incompatible ratione materiae. 5.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the author reiterates that he was never accused of having committed any crime and that the State party's decision to declare him a potential terrorist was solely based upon information from the SAPO. 6.2 On 19 March 1993, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it might raise issues under article 12 of the Covenant. 5.2 As regards the revoking of the expulsion order and the abolition of the restrictions, the author points out that the State party has not yet recognized that he was no potential terrorist. In this context, he states that the SAPO has provided information about him to Interpol. He claims that this means, in practice, that he can never leave Sweden without fearing for his safety. The State party's submission on the merits and the author's comments thereon 7.1 The State party, by submission of 9 November 1993, argues that Mr. Celepli was not lawfully within the territory of Sweden after an expulsion order had been issued against him on 10 December 1984. The State party submits that whether a person is lawfully within the territory of the State or not is determined according to national law. It explains that the expulsion order could not be enforced for humanitarian reasons, but that in principle the decision was taken that the author should not be allowed to stay in Sweden. The State party refers to its submission on admissibility and reiterates that the author's stay in Sweden after 10 December 1984 was only lawful under the condition that it did not extend beyond the borders of first the Haninge community and, later, the borders of the county of Stockholm. 5.3 With regard to the State party's arguments that the restrictions on his freedom of movement cannot be considered to be so severe as to constitute a deprivation of liberty, the author argues that a residence restriction can be considered a deprivation of liberty when it is of considerable duration or when it has serious consequences. He claims that his condition, being under residence restriction for nearly seven years and having to report to the police three times a week for five years, was so severe as to amount to a deprivation of liberty, within the meaning of article 9 of the Covenant. 5.4 The author further submits that although he has not been charged with any criminal offence, the effects of the treatment he was subjected to were such as to make him a criminal in the eyes of the public and amounted to harsh punishment for an offence with which he has not been charged and against which he has not been able to defend himself. 7.2 The State party further submits that, if the author would have left Sweden at any time after 10 December 1984, he would not have been allowed to return. The State party argues that the issuing of the expulsion order made the author's stay unlawful, even though the order was not enforced. In this connection, the State party argues that if the order had been enforced, the author would have been outside the country, as a consequence of which no issue under article 12 could arise. 3 Ibid., Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/36/40), annex XVIII, Anna Maroufidou v. Sweden, Views adopted on 9 April 1981. 4 Application No. 13344/87, Ulusoy declared inadmissible on 3 July 1989. v. 7.3 As regards the second issue identified by the Committee of whether a person's freedom of Sweden, 85