CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 12 January 2015, the complainant reiterated his claim that the State party would breach its obligations under article 3 of the Convention as he feared a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture or degrading treatment if he was forcibly removed to Algeria. 5.2 The complainant submits that he felt protected when he arrived in Sweden on 1 December 2005 and explains that he requested asylum on 16 January 2006, as he did not know how to seek asylum beforehand. As regards the human rights reports referred to by the State party, the complainant underscores the incidence of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment inside the prisons in Algeria and claims that many nongovernmental organizations cannot get inside the prisons to see what really happens. In addition, the complainant objects to the fact that, as part of his 2012 asylum request, he was interviewed only once and that contrary to the State party’s affirmation, he did not submit any arguments in writing.21 5.3 The complainant further claims that the asylum proceedings he went through were arbitrary and amounted to a denial of justice. In that regard, he points to the State party’s observations on his previous complaint to the Committee (case No. 437/2010), in which it indicated that on 24 October 2012 the decision to expel the complainant would no longer be enforceable, that the complainant would have the possibility of submitting a new application for asylum after that date and that the new application would entail a full examination. As part of the asylum proceedings initiated by the Migration Board on 27 December 2012, the complainant had three meetings with public counsel, during which he explained why he needed protection from being deported from Sweden. 5.4 The complainant further claims that during the first interview with the Migration Board on 31 May 2013, 90 per cent of the questions posed were not about the complainant’s case and were raised in such a way that he could not recount his story. The complainant argues that his public counsel considered the proceedings unfair since the investigator verified the complainant’s answers against the file of his previous asylum application. Furthermore, instead of carrying out a full examination of the complainant’s case, the Migration Board rejected his new application without another interview and took a decision to expel him to Algeria and to detain him in custody in that regard. The complainant also submits that some parts of the expulsion decision were a simple copy of the decisions adopted in the context of his first asylum request. 5.5 The complainant also claims that he was detained in custody arbitrarily, since his case was not final. as it could still be appealed before two instances: the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. He refers to a possible misunderstanding, as the Migration Board, in its decision of 22 September 2013 stated that “the United Nations Committee against Torture held on 12 November 2012 that it would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture to expel you [the complainant] to Algeria”, while the Committee declared the complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.22 The complainant further claims that he could not understand the English translations submitted by the State party of the decisions of the Migration Board of 22 September 2013 and of the Migration Court of 19 December 2013. 5.6 As regards the State party’s allegation that the complainant has not plausibly established his identity, the complainant asserts that the Migration Board, in its decision of 22 September 2013, attested that he had submitted a copy of his driving licence and a copy 21 22 10 See paragraph 4.9 above. In fact, the Committee informed the Swedish authorities on 12 November 2012 that it no longer maintained its request for interim measures.