CAT/C/21/D/88/1997 page 6 4.12 In a further submission dated 6 November 1998 the State party stated that Jordan and UNHCR had recently agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the rights of refugees in Jordan. The Memorandum contains the same definition of refugee as appears in article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, confirming the principle of non-refoulement regarding citizens of a third country who have been recognized as refugees by UNHCR. Thus, the Memorandum is an additional sign of Jordan's willingness to follow the principles contained in the Geneva Convention. There are also other signs of increasing cooperation between Jordanian authorities and UNHCR and of a wider understanding for the situation of Iraqi refugees. Counsel's comments 5.1 In her comments to the State party's submission counsel stresses that the author's last application for asylum was rejected on 28 August 1997. By then, the Swedish authorities had enough reliable information at their disposal to consider that Jordan would not be a safe country for the author, since he would be at risk of being deported to Iraq and subjected to torture in that country. 5.2 With respect to the observations made by the State party on 6 November 1998 counsel submits copy of a letter from the UNHCR dated 11 November 1998 in which she is informed that although UNHCR considers the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding as a very positive development it does not alter UNHCR's view that Jordan is not a safe country of asylum for Iraqi nationals. First, the Memorandum retains an important time limitation. According to its article 5 a refugee should receive legal status and UNHCR would endeavour to find recognized refugees a durable solution be it repatriation to the country of origin or resettlement in a third country. The sojourn of recognized refugees should not exceed six months. Secondly, the Jordanian authorities do not apply the Memorandum to deportees from third countries. Their practice with regard to Iraqi nationals deported back to Jordan from third countries is either to allow their departure to Iraq or to allow them to travel to any third country of their choice, including the country of deportation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. Since both the State party and the author's counsel have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits. 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Iraq or Jordan would violate the obligation of Sweden under