Serbia and Montenegro 266. Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, case No. 161/2000, decision adopted on 21 November 2002. The case concerned the burning and destruction of houses of Roma by non-Roma in April 1995. The Committee found violations of articles 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 of the Convention and recommended that a proper investigation into the facts be conducted, that the persons responsible for those acts be prosecuted and punished and that the complainants be provided with redress, including fair and adequate compensation. The Committee asked the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the decision, i.e. by 13 March 2003, of the steps taken in response to its observations. 267. On 4 August and 24 September 2003, the State party informed the Committee that it intended to provide compensation of 985,000 euros to the complainants. On 2 February 2004, the Rapporteur wrote to the State party expressing satisfaction with the State party’s intention to provide compensation but recalled that, in order to fully implement the decision, the State party was also requested to prosecute the persons responsible and asked to receive further information in this regard. The same request was made to a representative of the State party with whom the Rapporteur met on 30 April 2004. On 6 May 2004, the State party responded that it had provided compensation to the complainants and therefore all obligations arising from the Committee’s decision had been fulfilled by the Government of Montenegro. 268. Ristic v. Yugoslavia, case No. 113/1998, decision adopted on 11 May 2001. This case concerned the failure to investigate allegations of torture in circumstances where the cause of death of the victim was unclear. The Committee found violations of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention and recommended that appropriate remedies be adopted. After meeting with a representative of the State party on 30 April 2004, the Rapporteur was informed, on 3 May 2004, that the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Sabac had ordered the exhumation of the body of Milan Ristic and a new post-mortem, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any new evidence would justify a retrial. The exhumation was carried out on 20 April 2004 and the results would be communicated to the Committee once completed. Sweden 269. Chedli Ben Ahmed Karoui v. Sweden, case No. 185/2001, decision adopted on 8 May 2002. The case concerned the risk of being subjected to torture if the complainant were returned to Tunisia. The Committee found a violation of article 3 of the Convention. On 11 December 2002 the State party informed the Committee that a new application for, inter alia, a residence permit had been lodged with the Aliens Appeals Board by the complainant and his family, and that the Committee’s decision had been invoked in support of the application. On 4 June 2002, the Board revoked the expulsion decisions regarding the complainant and his family, who were subsequently granted permanent residence permits. Tunisia 270. M’Barek v. Tunisia, case No. 60/1996, decision adopted on 10 November 1999. The case concerned the failure to investigate allegations of torture in circumstances where the cause of death of the victim was unclear. The Committee found violations of articles 12 and 13 of the 96