they allege violation of article 3 of the Convention. Pursuant to rule 108 of the rules of procedure, at any time after the receipt of a complaint, the Committee, its working group, or the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures may transmit to the State party concerned a request that it take such interim measures as the Committee considers necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violations. The State party shall be informed that such a request does not imply a determination of the admissibility or the merits of the complaint. The Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures monitors compliance with the Committee’s requests for interim measures. The State party may inform the Committee that the reasons for the interim measures have lapsed or present arguments why the interim measures should be lifted. The Rapporteur, the Committee or its working group may withdraw the request for interim measures. 163.During the reporting period, the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures further elaborated the working methods regarding the withdrawal of requests for interim measures. Where the circumstances suggest that a request for interim measures is susceptible to review prior to consideration of the merits, a standard sentence should be added to such a request, stating that the request is made on the basis of the information contained in the complainant’s submission and may be reviewed, at the initiative of the State party, in the light of information and comments received from the State party and any further comments, if any, from the complainant. 164.In conformity with this approach, the Committee, through its Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures, decided to withdraw a request for interim measures for the first time in January 2003 (see complaint No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, text reproduced in annex VI, section A, to the present report). 165.During the period under review, the Rapporteur requested States parties to defer expulsion, deportation or extradition in a number of cases, so as to allow the Committee to consider the complaints under the Committee’s procedure. All States parties so requested acceded to the Committee’s requests for deferral. In five deportation/expulsion cases registered during the reporting period, the Rapporteur, after careful examination of the submissions, did not consider it necessary to request interim measures from the States parties concerned in order to avoid irreparable damage to the complainants upon return to their countries of origin. C. Progress of work 166.At the time of adoption of the present report, the Committee had registered 230 complaints with respect to 22 countries. Of them, 59 complaints had been discontinued and 39 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits with respect to 81 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 22 of them. Overall, 51 complaints remained pending for consideration. 167.At its twenty-ninth session, the Committee declared five complaints admissible, to be considered on their merits. 168.Also at its twenty-ninth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 119/1998 (V.N.I.M. v. Canada), 161/2000 (Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia), 193/2001 (P.E. v. France) and 204/2002 (H.K.H. v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VI, section A, to the present report. 169.In its decisions on complaints Nos. 119/1998 (V.N.I.M. v. Canada) and 204/2002 (H.K.H. v. Sweden), the Committee considered that the complainants had not substantiated their claims that they would risk being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded in each case that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not breach article 3 of the Convention. 170.In its decision on complaint No. 193/2001 (P.E. v. France), the Committee found that the complainant’s extradition to Spain did not amount to a violation of article 15 of the Convention, since it had not been established that the statement of a third person made before the Spanish police, and adduced as evidence in the complainant’s extradition proceedings in France, had been made as a result of torture. 171.In its decision on complaint No. 161/2000 (Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia), the Committee considered that the State party’s failure to take appropriate steps to protect the complainants, all Yugoslav nationals of Roma origin, against the torching and destruction of their houses by non-Roma inhabitants, despite the fact that the police had been informed and were present at the site, amounted to “acquiescence” in the sense of article 16 of the Convention, which it considered to be violated. The State party’s failure to prosecute the offenders and the police officers constituted a breach of article 12. Moreover, as the State party had failed to inform the complainants of its discontinuation of investigations, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to initiate private proceedings against those responsible, the Committee also found a violation of article 13. Although not expressly provided for in the Convention for victims of ill treatment other than torture, the Committee considered that the State party’s positive obligations under article 16 included a duty to provide the victims with fair and adequate compensation. 172.At its thirtieth session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of four complaints and to suspend consideration of two complaints. In addition, the Committee declared admissible two complaints, to be considered on their merits, and declared inadmissible complaint No. 216/2002 (H.I.A. v. Sweden) as manifestly ill-founded, since the complainant had failed to meet the basic level of substantiation of his claims, for purposes of admissibility. The text of this decision is reproduced in annex VI, section B, to the present report. 173.Also at its thirtieth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 190/2001 (K.S.Y. v. The Netherlands), 191/2001 (S.S. v. The Netherlands), 192/2001 (B.H. et al. v. Switzerland), 197/2002 (U.S. v. Finland), 198/2002 (A.A. v. The Netherlands), 201/2002 (M.V. v. The Netherlands), and 219/2002 (G.K. v. Switzerland). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VI, section A, to the present report. 174.In its decisions on complaints Nos. 192/2001 (B.H. et al. v. Switzerland), 198/2002 (A.A. v. The Netherlands) and 201/2002 (M.V. v. The Netherlands), the Committee considered that the complainants had not sufficiently substantiated their claim that they