- 74 and 38 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits with respect to 50 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 21 of them. Finally, 46 complaints remained outstanding. 207. At its twenty-seventh session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of three communications and declared one complaint admissible, to be considered on the merits. In addition, the Committee, while recalling that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the complainant to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture under article 3 of the Convention, declared inadmissible communication No. 170/2000 (A.R. v. Sweden) under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The text of this decision is reproduced in annex VII, section B, to the present report. 208. At its twenty-seventh session, the Committee adopted views in respect of communications Nos. 154/2000 (M.S. v. Australia), 156/2000 (M.S. v. Switzerland), 162/2000 (H.A. v. Australia), 166/2000 (B.S. v. Canada), 175/2000 (S.T. v. The Netherlands) and 178/2001 (H.O. v. Sweden). The text of the Committee’s decisions is reproduced in annex VII, Section A, to the present report. 209. In its decisions on the above-mentioned cases, the Committee considered that the complainants had not substantiated their claims that they would risk being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded in each case that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not breach article 3 of the Convention. 210. At its twenty-eighth session, the Committee declared inadmissible complaint 176/2000 (Roitman v. Spain), primarily because the complainant was not a victim within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The text of the decision is reproduced in annex VII, section B, to the present report. 211. Also at its twenty-eighth session, the Committee adopted decisions in respect of complaints Nos. 111/1998 (R.S. v. Austria), 138/1999 (M.P.S. v. Australia), 146/1999 (E.T.B. v. Denmark), 164/2000 (L.M.T. v. Sweden), 177/2001 (H.I. v. Australia), 179/2001 (B.A.M. v. Sweden), 180/2001 (F.Z. v. Denmark) and 185/2001 (Karoui v. Sweden). The text of the Committee’s decisions is reproduced in annex VII, section A, to the present report. 212. In its decision on complaint No. 111/1998 (R.S. v. Austria), the Committee considered that the Austrian authorities had not breached their obligation under article 13 of the Convention to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation. 213. In its decision on complaint No. 185/2001 (C.B.A.K. v. Sweden), the Committee found that the author had submitted substantive information, including medical reports showing that he had been subjected to torture in the past, a support letter from Amnesty International, and a statement from the chairman of the organization of which he was a member, which gave reason to believe that he would face a real risk of being subjected to torture if he were returned to Tunisia. 214. In its decision on complaints Nos. 138/1999 (M.P.S. v. Australia), 146/1999 (E.T.B. v. Denmark), 164/2000 (L.M.T. v. Sweden), 177/2001 (H.I. v. Australia), 179/2001