been assembled and could not be used so “un dispositif sanitaire” was made available to the complainant. At the time of depart there were no female guards aboard the plane. Unfortunately, the complainant could not use the “dispositif sanitaire” successfully. The State party notes that it is strange that the complainant did not raise these allegations earlier in the procedure despite the fact that he made two submissions to the Committee prior to his departure and prior to the Committee making its decision. The Committee has already made its decision and in any event the communication was only brought under article 3 of the Convention. As to the allegation that the complainant was tortured in India upon his return, the State party submitted that such allegations are very worrying but noted that these allegations were not made prior to the Committee’s decision in either of the complainant’s submissions of 5 April 2007 or 24 September 2007. It also noted that certain Indian newspapers reported that the complainant was brought before a judge on 5 September 2006 six days after his arrival in India. In any event, the complainant is no longer within Canada’s jurisdiction and although India may not have ratified the Convention, it has ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other mechanisms, United Nations and otherwise, which may be used in allegations of torture. As to whether the State party has received a response from India to its initial letter, the State party explains that it did receive such a letter but that no information was provided on the place of residence or the state of well-being of the complainant. In addition, it states that given the claim by counsel that the State party’s last note to India may have created additional risks for the complainant, the State party is not disposed to communicate again with the Indian authorities. On 7 April 2009, the State party responded to the complainant’s submission of 2 February 2009 as well as the Committee’s concerns with respect to the way in which the complainant was treated during his deportation to India. It submits that he 152