while the case was under consideration by the Committee. The complainant was later allowed to return to Norway. The Committee found that the author’s deportation to Pakistan despite a standing request for interim measures constituted a breach of article 22 of the Convention. However, it considered that by facilitating his return to Norway and granting him a three-year residence permit, the State party had remedied this breach. In view of the fact that the complainant, who was not tortured during his stay in Pakistan, had returned to the State party, where he received a residence permit for three years, the Committee considered that the issue as to whether his deportation to Pakistan constituted a violation of article 3 was moot. 84. In its decision on complaint No. 281/2005 (Pelit v. Azerbaijan), the Committee concluded that the expulsion of the complainant (a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, who was officially recognized as a refugee by Germany) to Turkey, constituted a violation of her rights under both articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. Upon registering the case, the Committee had requested the State party not to extradite the complainant while her case was under consideration by the Committee. The State party initially agreed not to do so, but subsequently deported her, after having received diplomatic assurances from Turkey to the effect that she would not be subjected to any form of ill-treatment. The State party affirmed that a post-expulsion monitoring mechanism had been established and that the complainant was not ill-treated after her return. The Committee expressed its concern about the situation and reiterated that once a State party makes the declaration under article 22 of the Convention, it voluntarily accepts to cooperate in good faith with the Committee under article 22; the complainant’s expulsion has rendered null the effective exercise of her right to complain. On the issue of the diplomatic assurances, and with reference to its decision in the case of Agiza v. Sweden (communication No. 233/2003), the Committee noted that although some form of a post-expulsion monitoring had indeed taken place, the State party had not provided any document, nor had it given sufficient details, to allow the Committee to evaluate whether these assurances were sufficient to safeguard the complainant’s rights. 85. In its decision on complaint No. 298/2006 (C.A.R.M. and others v. Canada), the Committee found that the complainants’ expulsion to Mexico, where C.A.R.M. and his family had allegedly been persecuted by the mayor of his home town in connivance with a drug cartel, did not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee considered that the complainants had not sufficiently substantiated the claim that their removal to Mexico would cause them irreparable harm, noting that they had never complained about their alleged persecution in that country and had not sought refuge in another region of Mexico, nor requested protection from the Mexican authorities before seeking asylum in Canada. 86. In complaint No. 300/2006 (Tebourski v. France), the complainant was a Franco-Tunisian national residing in France, who had been convicted on terrorist-related charges and was considered by the authorities to be a danger to the public. As a result, after his release from prison, his French citizenship was revoked and his deportation was ordered by the French authorities. The complainant claimed that his deportation would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention by France, as he would be at risk of torture in Tunisia. After examining the arguments and evidence submitted to it, the Committee concluded that substantial grounds existed for believing that the complainant would be at risk of torture, and that his deportation would amount to a violation of the Convention. The Committee regretted that, despite the Committee’s request not to deport the author, the State party had deported him to Tunisia before the Committee could decide on the case. As a result, the Committee also found a violation of article 22 of the Convention. 100