86. At its forty-second session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 261/2005 (Besim Osmani v. Serbia) and 324/2007 (Mr. X. v. Australia). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex XIII, section A, to the present report. 87. In its decision on complaint No. 261/2005 (Besim Osmani v. Serbia), the Committee considered that the infliction of physical and mental suffering aggravated by the complainant’s particular vulnerability, due to his Roma ethnic origin and unavoidable association with a minority historically subjected to discrimination and prejudice, reached the threshold of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Irrespective of whether the persons who had caused bodily injury to the complainant and verbally abused him were or were not public officials, the authorities of the State party who witnessed the events and failed to intervene to prevent the abuse have, at least “consented or acquiesced” to it, within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention, which the Committee considered to be violated. It also found that the investigation conducted by the authorities of the State party did not satisfy the requirements of article 12. Nor had the State party fulfilled its obligation under article 13 to ensure that the complainant had the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially investigated, by its competent authorities. Although not expressly provided for in the Convention for victims of ill-treatment other than torture, the Committee considered that the positive obligations of the State party under article 16 included a duty to provide the complainant with fair and adequate compensation. 88. Complaint No. 324/2007 (Mr. X. v. Australia), concerned a Palestinian born in Lebanon, a former member of the Lebanese armed forces, who allegedly had taken part in the 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as member of the Christian Democrats (Phalangists) militia. He became an assistant to one of the militia’s leaders in Lebanon, and allegedly misappropriated funds belonging to the organization. He fled to Germany and was granted political asylum there. Later, he was located in Germany by his previous superior and started to receive threats from him. Given that in the meantime he had committed crimes in Germany and had been sentenced to a prison term in Germany, he lost his refugee status. After having serviced his term, he travelled to Australia on a false identity and sought political asylum there. His request was rejected and he risked a forcible return to Lebanon. The complainant claimed that in case of his forcible removal, Australia would breach his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee concluded, on the merits, that the complainant failed to demonstrate that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture in Lebanon if returned there, and that therefore his removal would not constitute a breach of the Convention. D. Follow-up activities 89. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non-response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non-implementation of the Committee’s decisions; meeting with representatives of the 137