A/66/44 Hussain Khan, No. 15/1994); Serbia7 and Montenegro (with respect to Dimitrov, No. 171/2000;8 Dimitrijevic, No. 172/2000; Nikolić, Slobodan and Ljiljana, No. 174/2000; Dimitrijevic, No. 207/2002; and Osmani v. Republic of Serbia, No. 261/2005); and Tunisia (with respect to Ben Salem, No. 269/2005). 119. Action taken by the States parties in the following cases complied fully with the Committee’s decisions and no further action will be taken under the follow-up procedure: Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria (No. 8/1991), see A/65/44; M.A.K. v. Germany (No. 214/2002), see A/65/44;9 Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 161/2000), see A/65/44; A. v. the Netherlands (No. 91/1997), see A/65/44; Mutombo v. Switzerland (No. 13/1993), see A/65/44; Alan v. Switzerland (No. 21/1995), see A/65/44; Aemei v. Switzerland (No. 34/1995), see A/65/44; V.L. v. Switzerland (No. 262/2005), see A/65/44; El Rgeig v. Switzerland (No. 280/2005), see A/65/44; Tapia Páez v. Sweden (No. 39/1996), see A/65/44; Kisoki v. Sweden (No. 41/1996), see A/65/44; Tala v. Sweden (No. 43/1996), see A/65/44; Korban v. Sweden (No. 88/1997), see A/65/44; Ali Falakaflaki v. Sweden (No. 89/1997), see A/65/44; Ayas v. Sweden (No. 97/1997), see A/65/44; Haydin v. Sweden (No. 101/1997), see A/65/44; A.S. v. Sweden (No. 149/1999), see A/65/44; Karoui v. Sweden (No. 185/2001), see A/65/44; Dar v. Norway10 (No. 249/2004), see A/65/44; T.A. v. Sweden (No. 226/2003), see A/65/44; C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden (No. 279/2005), see A/65/44; and Iya v. Switzerland (No. 299/2006), see A/65/44. 120. In the following cases, the Committee will consider whether to close the dialogue with the State party under the follow-up procedure at its next session, on the basis of the latest submissions by the State parties: Amini v. Denmark (No. 339/2008), see below; and Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden (No. 322/2007), see below. 121. In the following cases, the Committee considered that for various reasons no further action should be taken under the follow-up procedure: Elmi v. Australia (No. 120/1998), see A/65/44; Arana v. France (No. 63/1997), see A/65/44; and Ltaief v. Tunisia (No. 189/2001), see A/65/44. In one case, given the author’s voluntary return to his country of origin, the Committee decided not to consider the case any further under the follow-up procedure: Falcon Ríos v. Canada (No. 133/1999), see A/65/44. 122. In the following cases, either further information is awaited from the States parties or the complainants and/or the dialogue with the State party is ongoing: Pelit v. Azerbaijan (No. 281/2005); Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004); Singh Sogi v. Canada (No. 297/2006); Brada v. France (No. 195/2002); Tebourski v. France (No. 300/2006); Guengueng et al. v. Senegal (No. 181/2001); Ristic v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 113/1998); Osmani v. Republic of Serbia (No. 261/2005); Blanco Abad v. Spain (No. 59/1996); Urra Guridi v. Spain (No. 212/2002); Agiza v. Sweden (No. 233/2003); Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden (No. 373/2009); Thabti v. Tunisia (No. 187/2001); Abdelli v. Tunisia (No. 188/2001); M’Barek v. Tunisia (No. 60/1996); Ali v. Tunisia (No. 291/2006); Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela (No. 110/1998). 7 8 9 10 GE.11-45568 On 11 June 2008, following requests by the Committee to Serbia and Montenegro to confirm which State would be following up on decisions adopted by the Committee and registered against the State party “Serbia and Montenegro”, the Secretariat received a response from Montenegro only which stated that all the cases were within the remit of Serbia. In December 2009, the Secretariat learned verbally from the State party that this case had been subsequently reopened but nothing has been received in writing to this effect. Although no violation was found in this case, the Committee welcomed the State party’s readiness to monitor the complainant’s situation and subsequently provide satisfactory information in this regard. The State had already remedied the breach prior to consideration of the case. 159