placed to advise the Committee on the complainant’s whereabouts and well-being and reminds the Committee that India is a party to the Convention as well as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, it has written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India informing it of the Committee’s Views, in particular, its request for updated information on the complainant. The State party submitted that the decision to return the complainant was not a matter of “exceptional circumstances”, as suggested by the Committee (para. 10.2). It reminded the Committee that the decision of 2 December 2003 was cancelled by the Court of Federal Appeal of 6 July 2005 and that the complainant’s deportation was based on the decision of 11 May 2006. In this latter decision, the Minister’s delegate had concluded that there was no risk of torture to the complainant and thus it was not necessary to balance the aspect of risk with that of danger to society to determine whether the complainant’s situation gave way to “exceptional circumstances” justifying his return despite the risk of torture. The State party contested the conclusion that the Minister’s delegate denied the existence of a risk and that the decision was not motivated. The existence of a new law in India was not the only basis upon which the delegate made his decision. He took into account the general human rights situation in India as well as the particular circumstances of the complainant’s case. The soundness of this decision was confirmed by the Court of Federal Appeal on 23 June 2006. The State party contested the Committee’s View that its determination that the complainant would not risk torture was based on information which had not been divulged to the complainant. The State party reiterated that the evaluation of risk was undertaken independently to the question of the threat the complainant posed to society, and the proof in question related only to the issue of danger posed. In addition, the law itself which allows for the consideration of information to which a complainant has not been made privy was considered by the Court of Federal Appeal in the complainant’s case to be constitutional and the 150