A/66/44 162 Committee’s decision The Committee considers that the follow-up dialogue is ongoing. The State party was invited to provide updated information on the complainant’s situation in April 2011. State party Canada Case Dadar, 258/2004 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Iranian to the Islamic Republic of Iran Views adopted on 3 November 2005 Issues and violations found Removal – article 3 Interim measures granted and State party response Granted and accepted. Remedy recommended The Committee urged the State party, in accordance with rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.4), to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of the decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed above. Due date for State party response 26 February 2006 Date of reply Latest reply 10 October 2007 (had previously responded on 22 March 2006 and 24 April 2006 (see Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/61/44)) and 9 August 2006 and 5 April 2007 (see ibid., Sixty-second Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/62/44)). State party’s response The State party removed the complainant to Iran on 26 March 2006 despite a finding of a violation of the Convention. In its response of 24 April 2006, it stated that since his return a Canadian representative had spoken with the complainant’s nephew who said that Mr. Dadar had arrived in Tehran without incident, and was staying with his family. The State party had no direct contact with him since he was returned to Iran. In the light of this information, as well as Canada’s determination that he did not face a substantial risk of torture upon return to Iran, the State party submits that it was not necessary for it to consider the issue of monitoring mechanisms in this case. (For a full account of the State party’s response, see A/61/44.) Complainant’s comments On 29 June 2006, counsel informed the Committee that subsequent to his initial detention, the complainant resided under house arrest, living with his aged mother. On several occasions the Iranian authorities asked him to re-attend for further questioning. The questioning pertained, inter alia, to the complainant’s political activities while in Canada. The complainant had expressed dissatisfaction with his apparent status in Iran as a persona non grata and said that he lacked status to obtain employment or travel. He was also unable to obtain the medication he received in Canada to treat his medical condition. Moreover, the Iranian authorities had GE.11-45568