251. During the period under review, the Rapporteur requested States parties to defer expulsion, deportation or extradition in a number of cases so as to allow the Committee to consider the complaints under the Committee’s procedure. All States parties so requested acceded to the Committee’s requests for deferral. In nine deportation/expulsion cases registered during the reporting period, the Rapporteur, after careful examination of the submissions, did not consider it necessary to request interim measures from the States parties concerned in order to avoid irreparable damage to the complainants upon return to their countries of origin. C. Progress of work 252. At the time of adoption of the present report the Committee had registered 249 complaints with respect to 23 countries. Of them, 59 complaints had been discontinued and 44 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits with respect to 99 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 25 of them. Overall, 47 complaints remained pending for consideration. 253. At its thirty-first session, the Committee declared one complaint admissible, to be considered on the merits, and declared inadmissible complaint No. 236/2003 (A.T.A. v. Switzerland). 254. Also at its thirty-first session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 153/2000 (Z.T. v. Australia), 186/2001 (K.K. v. Switzerland), 187/2001 (Thabti v. Tunisia), 188/2001 (Abdelli v. Tunisia), 189/2001 (Ltaief v. Tunisia), 199/2001 (H.A. v. Sweden), 203/2002 (A.R v. The Netherlands), 209/2002 (M.O. v. Denmark), 210/2002 (V.R. v. Denmark), 213/2002 (E.J.V.M. v. Sweden), 215/2002 (J.A.G.V. v. Sweden) and 228/2003 (T.M. v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VII to the present report. 255. In its decisions on complaints Nos. 153/2000 (Z.T. v. Australia), 186/2001 (K.K. v. Switzerland), 203/2002 (A.R. v. The Netherlands), 209/2002 (M.O. v. Denmark), 210/2002 (V.R. v. Denmark), 213/2002 (E.J.V.M. v. Sweden) and 215/2002 (J.A.G.V. v. Sweden), the Committee considered that the complainants had not established that they would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured 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. 256. In its decision on complaint No. 199/2001 (H.A. v. Sweden), the complainant claimed that her expulsion to Egypt would expose her to a risk of torture, given that her husband had been expelled to that country on grounds of his alleged involvement in terrorist activities. The Committee found that, in the light of assurances provided by the receiving State, Egypt, concerning the complainant’s and her husband’s treatment after return, as well as the State party’s own undertaking regularly to monitor the complainant’s situation by visits of its embassy or consular staff, the complainant had not made a case that her expulsion would violate article 3 of the Convention. 257. In its decision on complaint No. 228/2003 (T.M. v. Sweden), the Committee found that the complainant’s expulsion to Bangladesh, where he had allegedly been tortured as a member of an illegal political party, did not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention, given the fact that six years had lapsed since the alleged torture had taken place and that the complainant’s own political party now was part of the Government in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the 93