was treated with the utmost respect and dignity possible while at the same time assuring the security of all those involved. It notes the Committee’s comment that it was not in a position under the follow-up procedure to examine new claims against Canada. Thus, the State party is of the view that this case is closed and should no longer be considered under the follow-up procedure. Complainant’s response On 12 May 2008, the complainant’s representative commented on the State party’s response. She reiterates arguments previously made and argued that subsequent changes in legislation do not justify the violation of the complainant’s rights, nor the authorities’ refusal to grant him compensation. The State party is violating its obligations under international law by failing to recognize and implement the Views as well as its failure to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection. The efforts made by the State party to find out the current situation of the complainant are inadequate, and it has neglected to inform both the complainant’s representative and the Committee of the outcome of its request to the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Indeed, in the view of the complainant’s representative, such a contact may have created additional risks for the author. Also, despite the State party’s view to the contrary there is a lot of documentary proof that the Indian authorities continue to practice torture. The following information was provided to the complainant’s counsel from India over the telephone on 27 February 2008. As to his removal from Canada counsel states that the complainant was tied up for the whole 20 hours of his return to India, and that despite repeated requests the Canadian guards refused to loosen the ties around him which were causing pain. In addition, he was refused permission to use the toilet and had to relieve himself in a bottle in front of female guards, which he found humiliating. He was also denied food and water for the entire journey. In the representative’s view, this treatment by the Canadian authorities amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights. 153