A/66/44 information provided by the complainant and the State party, the Committee therefore concluded that article 3 of the Convention would be violated, should the complainant be extradited to Algeria. The Committee also found a violation of article 15 of the Convention since the State party used a testimony made under duress in the extradition procedure. 114. Also at its forty-sixth session, the Committee decided to declare inadmissible complaints No. 395/2009 (H.E-M. v. Canada) and No. 399/2009 (F.M-M. v. Switzerland). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex XII, section B, to the present report. 115. Complaint No. 395/2009 (H.E-M. v. Canada) concerned a Lebanese national, claiming that his deportation to Lebanon would lead to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. After examining the claims submitted by the complainant, as well as the arguments of the State party, the Committee concluded that the complainant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since his privately hired lawyer had not appealed the decisions of the State party’s authorities within the limits prescribed by the law. The complainant’s failure to use available remedies could therefore not be imputable to the State party. The Committee therefore declared the communication was inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 116. Complaint No. 399/2009 (F.M-M. v. Switzerland) concerned a national of the Congo, claiming that his expulsion to the Congo would expose him to the risk of torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. After examining the claims submitted by the complainant and the arguments of the State party, the Committee concluded that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, since the complainant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the new facts and evidence presented by him to the Committee. D. Follow-up activities 117. 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 to decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non-response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non-implementation of the Committee’s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow-up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his or her activities. 118. During its thirty-fourth session, the Committee, through its Rapporteur for follow-up to decisions on complaints, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow-up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee’s recommendations made in the decisions. To date, the following countries have not yet responded to these requests: Bulgaria (with respect to Keremedchiev, No.257/2004); Canada (with respect to Tahir 158 GE.11-45568