CAT/C/38/D/249/2004 Page 13 of blasphemy, and the police has actively sought his arrest. The complainant states that he lived in hiding in a mud hut for the last months and that he has been very sick. 12.2 Counsel refers to UNEs decision of 30 March 2006 and points out that the decision insinuates that the complainant had himself initiated the blasphemy petition, and that the grant of stay was only made upon serious doubt. This assertion has no support in the Embassy report or in any other document, and the report states that there is no indication that the case is not genuine or that steps have been taken to influence the result of the verification process. 12.3 Counsel recalls that UNEs decision of reversal is based on the Embassy report, which concluded that the petitioner in the blasphemy case had tried to register a criminal case against the complainant since 2002. This corresponds to the information provided by the complainant to the Norwegian authorities. Counsel states that although the State party had knowledge of this fact, it disregarded it and refused to investigate, until a fact finding mission was established with the result of the Embassy report. This report confirms that the complainant’s statements were correct. 12.4 To support her claims on the pattern of abuse of rights, counsel submits new documents, including a letter from the Embassy of Pakistan of 10 February 2006, confirming the existence of an understanding between the State party and Pakistan, to the effect that Pakistani citizens should only be transported with valid passports. Amended complaint 13.1 As a result of UNEs decision of 30 March 2006, counsel agrees that the complainant no longer has a legal interest in a decision on the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, to grant him protection, as he has been given permission to stay. Counsel thus withdraws this part of the complaint. 13.2 However, counsel maintains that there is still an interest in determining whether the State party violated article 3 by expelling the complainant on 21-22 September 2005 and by refusing to comply with the request for interim measures under rule 108. She claims compensation for the hardship endured by the complainant. 13.3 Counsel refers to article 22 of the Convention and maintains her claims that the State party did not deal in good faith with the Committee’s request under rule 108 when it expelled the complainant to Pakistan. Additional comments by the State party and the complainant 14. On 10 May 2006, the State party provided new factual information transpiring from the results of an inquiry directed to the Ahmadiya Foreign Missions Office in Rabwah (Ahmadiya Office). In a correspondence dated 6 April 2006 to the Norwegian Embassy in Islamabad, that the Ahmadiya Office indicated that according to reports received from Islamabad and District Sheikhupura, the blasphemy case against the complainant was not genuine, and that it had in fact been engineered by the complainant himself. As a result of this, the complainant had been expelled from the Ahmadiya Community. As a consequence of this letter, UNE requested UDI to consider whether the residence permit granted in UNE’s decision of 30 March 2006 should be revoked. The State party concludes by questioning the