decision for deportation and since the court must give a ruling within 48 hours of
the matter being referred to it.
Comments of the author
6.1 In a letter dated 10 February 1997, the author asserts that the Tribunal
Administratif de Versailles did not take account, in its decision of 13 June 1995 to
refuse him a residence permit, of the documents submitted to it as supporting
evidence of his integration into French society. He adds that he did not receive a
summons to appear in court to hear the decision.
6.2 The author maintains that his lawyer filed an appeal against the request to leave
French territory of 12 August 1993, and that it was rejected.
6.3 The author explains that he was never informed of the many judicial remedies
available to him. He therefore did not know he could ask the administrative court
for an annulment of the request to leave French territory.
6.4 He points out that the proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat will probably take
three years and that he cannot wait for its reply.
6.5 The author submits supporting documents to substantiate his integration into
French society.
Considerations of the Committee
7.1 Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the
Convention.
7.2 Pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention the Committee is
precluded from considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that
all available domestic remedies have been exhausted; this rule does not apply if it
is established that the application of domestic remedies has been or would be
unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief to the
presumed victim. In the case under consideration, the author has not asked the
administrative judge for an annulment of the request to leave French territory; he
has not completed his appeal against the deportation order before the Tribunal
Administratif de Versailles; and the rejection of his request for a residence permit
is under appeal before the Conseil d'Etat. The author has not presented any reasons
for believing that these appeals have little chance of success. The Committee finds
that the requirements under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not
been met.
8. The Committee therefore decides: