Since then he is detained awaiting deportation to Lebanon.

3.1 The complainant contended that his return would violate article 3, and that he should be returned only if it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the claim was false.

Worse still, over the long run, the tax burden would shift.

1.1 The complainant is S.U.A., a Bangladeshi citizen born in 1972 currently awaiting deportation from Sweden.

He claims that his expulsion to Bangladesh would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention.

On 2 May 2000, the complainant was detained in immigration detention for purposes of removal.

It will therefore be necessary to obtain information with regard to the number who will need to be displaced and the degree of vulnerability.

He did not apply for refugee status and accordingly was sent back to Mexico the following day.

He was transferred from the boat onto the Seeadler and was then taken to Dar es Salaam in German East Africa.

1.1 The complainant is R.D., a Bangladeshi citizen, currently awaiting deportation from Sweden to Bangladesh.

On 6 July 2004, the police formally notified him of this decision, and informing him that he would be deported without delay.

He frequently laments the loss of his farm and bamboo plantation he had to leave these behind when he was forcefully relocated for the project.

The Government, in its response, confirms that Mr. Muito is no longer in detention in the United Kingdom and has been deported to Kenya.

In enforcing the expulsion order, the State party ensures that his health will be taken into account in deciding how the deportation will be carried out and the Bangladeshi authorities will not be informed of his return.

2.6 On 7 June 2002, the complainant lodged the present complaint with the Committee, requesting interim measures to stay his removal.

Mr. Peltier was arrested in Canada and extradited to the United States for the murder of two FBI agents.

The Committee declared the complaint admissible, even though the complainant had not applied to the Federal Court for leave to appeal the Minister's decision not to grant a stay of his removal on humanitarian grounds.

As the complainant has not substantiated his claim under article 3, his removal to his country of origin was not in breach of that provision.

The Committee considers, however, that aggravation of the complainant's state of health that might be caused by his deportation is in itself insufficient to substantiate this claim, which is accordingly considered inadmissible.

Mr. El Derini was first taken to SSI headquarters in Lazoghly, where he was detained for two days before being transferred to the SSI branch in Nassr City.

2.1 The author served a prison term in Heimsheim prison in Germany from 10 March 1998 to 28 February 2003, when he was deported.

He claims that his removal to Bangladesh in the event of the rejection of his refugee claim would constitute a violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention by Sweden.

He claimed that his expulsion to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation by Australia of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

On 19 February 2004, he was transferred to Abu Zabaal prison some 50 km from Cairo, against which he protested by going on a hunger strike lasting 17 days.

Mr. S.V. returned to Canada on 9 December 2000, without a residence permit he did not apply for refugee status and accordingly was sent back to Mexico the following day.

On accessibility of legal advice, he submits that prison internal legal services are rare in German prisons and that his deportation directly after his release on parole prevented him from contacting a lawyer.

In 2007, Michael Sata then the Zambian opposition leader travelled to Malawi for a private visit, but was deported on arrival at Chileka Airport and driven 400 kilometers back to Zambia.

In addition to the human and material losses suffered due to war, thousands of civilians were killed and tens of thousands of people deported from Estonia by the Soviet authorities until Joseph Stalin's death in 1953.

Neither did the Swedish authorities conceive an effective and durable arrangement for monitoring, conducting the first visit over a month after the complainant's removal.

3.1 The complainant considers that his deportation to Algeria is a violation by France of article 3 of the Convention insofar as there are real risks of his being subjected to torture in his country of origin for the reasons mentioned above.

For these reasons, and considering the fact that the Government has changed since the alleged torture, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to show that substantial grounds exist to prove that he would be at a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if removed from Sweden.

4.21 In view of the complainant's submissions, the State party contends that he has not substantiated his claim and that there are no substantial grounds for holding that his expulsion would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

As a result, the Committee also concludes that the complainant has established that his removal was in breach of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Prior to the return of an alien who has been issued a residence permit under sections 7 or 8 and who has been expelled by judgement , the Danish Immigration Service decides whether the alien can be returned, cf. section 31, unless the alien consents to his return.

Given the absolute obligation of States not to expose any person to the danger of torture by way of extradition, expulsion, deportation, or other transfer, diplomatic assurances should not be used to circumvent that non refoulement obligation.

3.1 The complainant asserts that he is in danger of being immediately arrested by the police, tortured or ill treated or even condemned to death or summarily executed if he is deported to Pakistan.

As for substantive criteria to be applied by the Rapporteur, a complaint must have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for it to be concluded that the alleged victim would suffer irreparable harm in the event of his or her deportation.

It began by setting out the reasons why, following a detailed review of the complainant's allegations, the Swiss Asylum Review Commission, like the Federal Office for Refugees, was not convinced that Z.E. was seriously at risk of prosecution if deported to Pakistan.

Furthermore, the State party recalls the Committee's jurisprudence on article 16, according to which the deterioration of the complainant's state of health possibly caused by his or her deportation would not amount to the type of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 16 of the Convention.

On 7 July 2004, the author requested the Committee to issue a request for interim measures under rule 86 of its rules of procedure, asking the State party not to deport him while his communication was under consideration by the Committee.

This appeal contained additional arguments against his deportation that had not been available to the Prefect of Indre when the decision of expulsion was taken and of which the State party's authorities were, or should have, been aware still required judicial resolution at the time he was in fact expelled.

Authorizes the heads of the Convention secretariat to draw down an amount of 380,000 United States dollars from the projected carry over at the end of 2005 for the special contingency reserve and to use that sum in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 above should those in kind contributions cease

In the present case, the Committee felt no appropriate remedy was available to the complainant once he had been deported to Algeria, even if the domestic courts in the State party were to rule in his favour at the conclusion of proceedings which were still under way after the extradition.

1.1 The complainant is Mr. P.A.C., a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnic origin born on 15 March 1976 and, at the time of submission of the complaint, detained in immigration detention awaiting removal from Australia to Sri Lanka.

It is to be pointed out that the finding was not made on the basis that Canada was a party to the Second Optional Protocol, which it is not, nor on the basis that the author would risk a violation of article 6 in the receiving country.