she had been subjected to while in detention because of her affiliation with the banned PDR-Ubuyanja political party, which included repeated rape under the threat of execution, as a result of which she became pregnant. The Committee also considered that information provided by the complainant demonstrated that ethnic tensions in Rwanda continue to exist, thus increasing the likelihood that the complainant might be subjected to torture upon return to Rwanda. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that substantial grounds existed for believing that the complainant and her son would be at risk of torture if returned to Rwanda. 79. In the views on complaint 280/2005 (Rgeig v. Switzerland), the Committee considered that the State party had not presented sufficiently convincing arguments to demonstrate the absence of any risk that the complainant would be exposed to torture if he were to be returned to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account the findings in the medical report on the presence of serious after-effects of the acts of torture inflicted on the complainant in the past, his political activities subsequent to his departure from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and the persistent reports concerning the treatment generally meted out to such activists if forcibly returned to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. 80. In complaint No. 282/2005 (S.P.A. v. Canada) the complainant claimed that she would be imprisoned, tortured or killed if returned to Iran, in violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention, since she was a known opponent to the Iranian regime, and that a court summons in her name existed. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainant as well as the arguments of the State party, concluded that she had not advanced satisfactory evidence or details relating to her custody in the basement of a detention facility in Iran or escape from detention. Further, she had failed to provide plausible explanations for her failure or inability to provide certain details regarding her stay for over three months in Iran subsequent to her escape and the names of those who helped her to escape. Finally, the Committee considered that she failed to provide plausible explanations for her subsequent journey through seven countries, before claiming refugee status in Canada. Whilst noting with concern reports of human rights violations in Iran, the Committee considered that the complainant had not substantiated that she would personally face such a real and imminent risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Iran. Accordingly, no breach of article 3 was found. 81. At its thirty-eighth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 249/2004 (Dar v. Norway), 268/2005 (A.A. v. Switzerland), 270 and 271/2005 (E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden), 281/2005 (Pelit v. Azerbaijan), 296/2006 (E.V.I. v. Sweden), 298/2006 (C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada) and 300/2006 (Tebourski v. France). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex VII, section A, to the present report. 82. In complaints Nos. 268/2005 (A.A. v. Switzerland), 296/2006 (E.V.I. v. Sweden), and 270 and 271/2005 (E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden) the complainants claimed violations of article 3 of the Convention by the respective States, should they be returned to their countries after being refused asylum. The Committee held, however, that the complainants had not demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that their return to their countries of origin would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, and, therefore, no violations of the Convention were found. 83. Complaint No. 249/2004 (Dar v. Norway) concerned an Ahmadiya retired army officer accused of blasphemy in Pakistan. The complainant, who sought asylum in Norway, was deported to Pakistan although the Committee had requested the State party not to deport him 99