has not been established that the statement of Mr. San Epifanio, made before Spanish police on 28 April 1994, was obtained by torture. 6.12The Committee reiterates that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee considers that the State party’s decision to grant the Spanish extradition request does not disclose a violation by the State party of article 15 of the Convention.7.Consequently, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the extradition of the complainant to Spain did not constitute a breach of either article 3 or 15 of the Convention. B. Decisions on inadmissibility Complaint No. 216/2002 Submitted by:H.I.A. (represented by counsel) Alleged victim:H.I.A. State party:Sweden Date of complaint:2 August 2002 (initial submission) The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 2 May 2003, Adopts the following decision on admissibility under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention. 1.1The complainant is Mr. H.I.A., a Jordanian national, born on 14 December 1952, currently residing in Sweden and awaiting deportation to Jordan. He claims that his forcible return to Jordan would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel. 1.2On 29 August 2002, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State party for comments. The facts as submitted by the complainant 2.1The complainant was born and raised in Nablus (West Bank), where he lived until 1971. That year the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)a accused him of being an Israeli spy and traitor and imprisoned him for a total of nine months, in two locations in Lebanon, before he was freed by an (unspecified) court. He alleges that he was tortured and beaten during his detention. After travelling to the Syrian Arab Republic, he was again imprisoned by PLO for the same reasons (apparently in Syria), and released by an (unspecified) court. 2.2Following his release, the complainant lived in the United Arab Emirates for 23 years. In 1995, he allegedly wanted to sell land in Netanya, Israel, that he had inherited from his mother, but he was unable to conclude the sale as Israeli law prescribed that the transaction would have to take place in either Israel or Jordan and he could allegedly not travel to either country. He contends that he rejected a request from PLO to buy the land at a low price, was threatened that he could not sell it elsewhere and labelled a traitor. 2.3Upon return to the United Arab Emirates after an attempt in 1996 to sell the land in Lithuania, he was arrested and detained for three months for rent arrears approximating US$ 3,000. He contends that the real reason for his arrest was “political”, and that after his employer learned of his efforts to sell the land, his work contract was not renewed. The complainant contends that the United Arab Emirates intelligence service then became aware that PLO considered him a traitor, and his residence permit was withdrawn. 2.4As he did not want to return to Jordan for fear of persecution, the complainant left the United Arab Emirates in 1998 for Lithuania. He married a Lithuanian woman and was granted a residence permit. On 6 November 1999, his residence permit expired and was not prolonged because his wife, from whom he had separated, was opposed to the renewal. On 17 December 1999, the complainant travelled to Sweden and applied for asylum on 20 December 1999. Attempting to extend his passport, the complainant’s (Jordanian) lawyer informed him that the Jordanian security services requested his and his children’s presence in the country in order to do so. His children and their mother reside in Damascus, on expired passports, and they allegedly cannot travel to Jordan to renew them. 2.5On 17 April 2001, the State party’s Migration Board denied the complainant’s application. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected his appeal on 24 April 2002. A further application (based upon factual circumstances that had not previously been examined by the authorities) was rejected on 3 June 2002. The complaint 3.1The complainant contends that owing to his continued efforts to sell land and his refusal to cooperate with PLO, he is regarded as disloyal to the Palestinian cause and is at personal risk of being subjected to torture in Jordan. He also fears that, as there is allegedly close cooperation between the Jordanian authorities and PLO, he may possibly be handed over to PLO. He cites reports of nongovernmental organizations in support of the proposition that both Jordan and the Palestinian Authority are engaged in gross, flagrant