CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 not come from the Committee itself. It refers to a decision of the Refugee Appeals Board which concluded that the confidentiality of information on the asylum-seeker is an essential guarantee of the right to asylum, and that the country considering an asylum request is under an obligation to ensure that confidentiality is observed. Disregard for this obligation may aggravate the applicant’s fears, or may in itself create the conditions for exposure to persecution within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, or for exposure to one of the serious threats covered by law. 6.2 The State party notes that the communication contains no specific grievance and does not refer, even in substance, to any article of the Convention. It believes the communication concerns article 3 of the Convention and proposes to outline, first, the legal framework for asylum requests and, second, the actual remedies applicable, and, finally, to demonstrate that the complainant’s request was considered in accordance with article 3 of the Convention. 6.3 The State party describes the initial procedure followed by OFPRA in its consideration of asylum requests and stresses the independence of this office and its cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Its staff have access to a variety of sources and are in constant contact with its major European counterparts, which increases the amount of documentation available and enhances its ability to carry out checks. The State party emphasizes that it knows how difficult it can be, in certain circumstances, to produce physical evidence, that it strives to assess the person’s overall credibility and that, if there is any uncertainty, the applicant is given the benefit of the doubt. 6.4 The State party describes the procedure for appealing to the Refugee Appeals Board and stresses that a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is present on account of the need to verify the alleged persecution. It describes the review of an application for asylum by OFPRA when new evidence is submitted by the applicant. In this case, the applicant is subject to a fast-track review procedure and his or her application is processed by a different protection officer from the one who processed the initial application. If OFPRA deems the application for review admissible, it considers whether the facts are established or not and whether they justify the applicant’s fears of persecution. 6.5 In the case in point, the State party points out that the risks referred to by the complainant to justify his stay in the country as a refugee were thoroughly examined on five occasions, that is, three times by OFPRA and twice by the Refugee Appeals Board. It notes that none of the reviews found evidence of a real risk to the complainant if he was returned to his country, despite his claims to the contrary. It refers to the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 18 April 2005, which held that “the authenticity of the two documents produced and presented as wanted notices, one of which is dated 2 January 2005, is not sufficiently substantiated”. It further stresses that the administrative court of Orléans, in its decision of 25 August 2006, also carried out a thorough review with regard to article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the European Convention on Human Rights”), which covers the same area of protection as article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 5