CAT/C/38/D/300/2006 page 8 decision on the question in the light of the information which the authorities of the State party had or should have had in their possession at the time of the expulsion. Subsequent events are useful only for assessing the information which the State party actually had or could have deduced at the time of expulsion.3 8.2 To justify its refusal to comply with the Committee’s decision requesting it not to deport the complainant to Tunisia while his case was being considered by the Committee, the State party puts forward four arguments: − The danger which the complainant posed to the domestic public order; − The absence of a risk that the individual concerned would be tortured if returned to Tunisia; − The fact that the individual concerned, while opposing his deportation to Tunisia, did not suggest another host country; − The non-legally binding character for States parties of protection measures decided by the Committee pursuant to rule 108 of the rules of procedure. In this regard, the Committee affirms that the purpose of the Convention in article 3 is to prevent a person from being exposed to the risk of torture through refoulement, expulsion or extradition “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”, regardless of the character of the person, in particular the danger he poses to society. 8.3 In other words, article 3 of the Convention offers absolute protection to anyone in the territory of a State party which has made the declaration under article 22. Once this person alludes to a risk of torture under the conditions laid down in article 3, the State party can no longer cite domestic concerns as grounds for failing in its obligation under the Convention to guarantee protection to anyone in its jurisdiction who fears that he is in serious danger of being tortured if he is returned to another country. 8.4 In the present case, the matter having been brought to the Committee’s attention after the alleged or real exhaustion of domestic remedies, even if the Committee takes into consideration all the comments which the State party has submitted on this communication, the declaration made by the State party under article 22 confers on the Committee alone the power to assess whether the danger invoked is serious or not. The Committee takes into account the State party’s assessment of the facts and evidence, but it is the Committee that must ultimately decide whether there is a risk of torture. 3 See communication No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, Views adopted on 20 May 2005, para. 13.2.