return to India would subject him to severe emotional trauma, thereby violating article 16 of the Convention, and observed that, although his deportation may give rise to subjective fears, it would not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16. 263. In case No. 214/2002 (M.A.K. v. Germany), the complainant, a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, had applied for the reopening of asylum proceedings in Germany after his initial asylum application had been rejected by final decision of a German court. Although domestic judicial proceedings in relation to his application to reopen asylum proceedings were still pending, the Committee declared the complaint admissible, in the light of the fact that the complainant’s simultaneous application for an interim order staying his imminent deportation had been dismissed by final decision, and that the main proceedings had no suspensive effect. However, the Committee found that the complainant’s deportation to Turkey would not violate article 3 of the Convention, since he had failed to corroborate his claimed participation in a PKK training camp in the Netherlands, and because his participation in a highway blockade organized by PKK sympathizers in 1994, for which he had been sentenced to a suspended prison term, did not amount to the type of activity which would make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of being tortured upon return to Turkey. At the same time, the Committee welcomed the State party’s offer to monitor the complainant’s situation following his return to Turkey and requested it to keep the Committee informed about his situation. D. Follow-up activities 264. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. The Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: (a) Monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by writing to States parties to inquire about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; (b) Recommending to the Committee appropriate action in situations of non-response by States, and upon the receipt of letters from complainants concerning States’ failure to implement the Committee’s decisions; (c) Meeting with representatives of the States parties to encourage compliance with the Committee’s decisions and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by OHCHR would be appropriate or desirable; (d) Conducting, with the approval of the Committee, follow-up visits to States (e) Preparing periodic reports to the Committee on his/her activities. parties; 265. The Rapporteur on follow-up submitted the first written report to the Committee at its thirty-second session. The report contained information received up to 3 May 2004 from either the complainants or the States parties on the issue of follow-up to a number of decisions in which the Committee found violations of the Convention. The following country-by-country list contains a brief summary of such decisions and the follow-up information received. 95