Neither did they request the Czech authorities through inter State legal assistance procedure to interview the complainant.

Comments by the complainant

The complainant was not the subject of any national or international arrest warrant, nor a request for extradition.

In August 1995, the complainant made a request for asylum, which was later denied by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA).

The facts as presented by the complainant

The facts as submitted by the complainant

According to counsel for the complainant, the court in its verdict of 27 April 2004 rejected the complainant's request for a forensic medical examination during the trial, but referred to a medical examination report by the prison doctor which indicated that the complainant had suffered injuries in prison.

He also contended that the court rejected a request from the complainant for a medical examination as he had been tortured in detention.

Since the complainant had made the request without the assistance of counsel, he was unable to appeal the decision to the Refugee Appeals Commission.

In such cases, the Rapporteur may request the State party to refrain from deporting a complainant, while his or her complaint is under consideration by the Committee, even before domestic remedies have been exhausted.

The complainant is represented by counsel, Mr. Didier Rouget.

Additional comments by the State party and the complainant

In the State party's submission on admissibility and the merits of 10 April 2003, it acceded to the Committee's request not to expel the complainant.

(f) Steps taken by the complainant to exhaust domestic remedies

4.9 The State party notes that in R.K. v. Canada the Committee found that the complainant had not exhausted domestic remedies if he had not pursued a request for judicial review of a negative decision by the Refugee Determination Division and had not lodged a request for a ministerial waiver.

An additional law had set new instructions for halting criminal investigations at the request of the complainant in cases of domestic violence, offering treatment as an alternative.

4.8 In the case of the complainant Mr. S.V., the State party notes, with regard to his second asylum request, that he did not request leave to apply for judicial review of the negative decision of the Refugee Determination Division.

Apart from timely submission of a complainant's request for interim measures of protection under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee's rules of procedure, the basic admissibility criteria set out in article 22, paragraphs 1 to 5, of the Convention, must be met by the complainant for the Rapporteur to act on his or her request.

Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant,

This request was granted by the Committee.

This request was granted by the Committee.

Fearing reprisals by the police, the complainant did not go to hospital for treatment.

The complainant had further been physically abused also by supporters of the Awami League.

12.26 By letter of 7 April 2005, counsel for the complainant made further submissions.

12.33 By letter of 21 April 2005, counsel for the complainant submitted final remarks.

Alleged victim Complainant

The undertaking by France that the complainant would not be tortured was thus not respected.

The Committee also takes note of the information furnished by the complainant on these points.

According to counsel for the complainant, the complainant last met Swedish representatives in July 2004.

In P.S. v. Canada the Committee had found the communication inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had not applied for judicial review of a decision denying his request for a ministerial waiver.

The Secretary General or the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures may request clarification from the complainant concerning the applicability of article 22 of the Convention to his complaint, in particular regarding

Alleged victims The complainant

Alleged victim The complainant

Alleged victim The complainant

The complainant is Mr.

The Committee, its working group or rapporteur(s) may request the State party concerned or the complainant to submit additional written information, clarifications or observations, and shall indicate a time limit for their submission.

According to counsel, these statements were presented to the complainant by Egyptian officials during an interrogation.

Subject matter Extent of the review of criminal case against complainant on appeal by Spanish courts

The State party's action in expelling the complainant in the face of the Committee's request for interim measures nullified the effective exercise of the right to complaint conferred by article 22, and has rendered the Committee's final decision on the merits futile and devoid of object.

The State party's action in expelling the complainant in the face of the Committee's request for interim measures nullified the effective exercise of the right to complaint conferred by article 22, and has rendered the Committee's final decision on the merits futile and devoid of object.

5.2 Regarding the documents provided by the complainant in support of his claim that there was an ongoing case against him before the Madaripur Magistrate's Court, the complainant still believes they are authentic.

Alleged victim(s) The complainant

1.1 The complainant is Mr.

On behalf of The complainant

An appeal by the complainant was also rejected, by the Swiss Asylum Review Commission, in a ruling dated 5 August 2002.