supported by the fact that the author, although allegedly tortured in Tunisia in 1989, returned to Tunisia in 1990 without being subjected to torture. For the abovementioned reasons, the Committee finds that the complainant has not provided substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured were he to be returned to Tunisia and that such danger is personal and present. 6. 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 complainant’s removal to Tunisia would not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. Notes 1 The State party refers to S.L. v. Sweden, complaint No. 150/1999, Decision adopted on 11 May 2001. 2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), annex IX, para. 8 (c). 3 Case No. 65/1997. 4 The State party refers to J.U.A. v. Switzerland, case No. 100/1997, Decision adopted on 10 November 1998. 5 The State party refers to A.S. v. Sweden, case No. 149/1999, Decision adopted on 24 November 2000. 9