and Political Rights and the possibility for the complainant to use United Nations special procedure mechanisms such as the Special Rapporteur on torture, it considers the United Nations better placed to make enquiries about the complainant’s well-being. Complainant’s response The complainant’s counsel has contested the State party’s decision to deport the complainant despite the Committee’s findings. He has not to date provided information he may have on the author’s situation since arriving in Iran. The complainant’s counsel states that on 24 June 2006, he heard from the complainant who informed him that the Iranian authorities had delivered a copy of the Committee’s decision to his home and had requested his attendance for questioning. He was very worried over the telephone and counsel has not heard from him since. In addition, he states that Mr. Dadar is persona non grata in Iran. He cannot work or travel and is unable to obtain the medical treatment he had received in Canada to treat his condition. Action taken See the Committee’s annual report (A/61/44) for an account of the contents of notes verbales sent from the Special Rapporteur to the State party. Committee’s decision During the consideration of the follow-up at its thirty-sixth session, the Committee deplored the State party’s failure to abide by its obligations under article 3, and found that the State party violated its obligations under article 3 not to, “expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. The dialogue is ongoing. State party FRANCE Case Arana, 63/1997 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Spanish to Spain Views adopted on 9 November 1999 107