he had not been able to describe in detail his place of detention and that he had not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his personal claim. The author was ordered to leave Switzerland before or on 30 August 1994, failing which he would be returned to Zaire. 2.4 In January 1994, the author was joined by his daughter, who was born in Zaire in 1987. In Switzerland, the author began a relationship with Ms. Y; a daughter was born in June 1994. Because of the birth, the expulsion was deferred to the end of September 1994. The complaint: 3.1 The author argues that the political situation in Zaire has not improved and that President Mobutu continues to terrorize the country. His family members still in Zaire have informed him that the human rights situation in the country is bad and that there is practically no political opposition left. The author submits that he fears for his security, and points out that at least one asylum seeker, who had been returned by Belgium to Zaire in April 1990, had been arrested upon return and beaten, and subsequently disappeared. The author also states that his cousin has told him not to return to Zaire, because of the risks involved. 3.2 The author claims that his forced return to Zaire would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. In this context, he refers to the Committee’s Views in communication No. 13/1993, Mutombo v. Switzerland, where the Committee concluded that a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights existed in Zaire. The author argues that his family background as well as his personal experience as a political opponent in Zaire, make it predictable that he will be arrested upon arrival in Zaire, and consequently be subjected to maltreatment and torture. In this context, he submits that an article recently published in Zaire attributed certain political opinions to him. 3.3 Pending the Committee’s decision on the merits of his communication, the author requests the Committee to request Switzerland, under rule 108, paragraph 9, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to implement the expulsion order against him. 3.4 It is stated that the same matter has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. Issues and proceedings before the Committee: 4.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 4.2 The Committee has examined the claims submitted by the author and observes that his account lacks the minimum substantiation that would render the communication compatible with article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 5. The Committee against Torture therefore decides: (a) that the communication is inadmissible; -59-