effective remedy that must be exhausted in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as it depends on the discretionary authority of a Minister, the question of an appeal against such a ministerial decision did not arise under article 22, paragraph 5, subparagraph (b), of the Convention. On the merits, the Committee found that the complainant had provided sufficient medical evidence to establish that his expulsion to Mexico would violate article 3 of the Convention. 141. In its decision on complaint No. 207/2002 (Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Committee found that the State party’s failure to investigate the complainant’s alleged racially motivated torture by the Serbian police and to ensure his right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially investigated by, the public prosecutor, thereby also depriving him of the possibility to file a civil suit for compensation, violated article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, and articles 12, 13 and 24 of the Convention. 142. At its thirty-fourth session, the Committee declared inadmissible complaint No. 211/2002 (P.A.C. v. Australia). 143. Also at its thirty-fourth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 171/2000 (Jovica Dimitrov v. Serbia and Montenegro), 194/2001 (I.S.D. v. France), 195/2002 (Mafhoud Brada v. France), 212/2002 (Kepa Urra Guridi v. Spain), 220/2002 (R.D. v. Sweden), 221/2002 (M.M.K. v. Sweden), 222/2002 (Z.E. v. Switzerland), 226/2003 (Tharina Ali v. Sweden) and 233/2003 (Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VIII, section A, to the present report. 144. In its decisions on complaints Nos. 194/2001 (I.S.D. v. France), 220/2002 (R.D. v. Sweden), 221/2002 (M.M.K. v. Sweden) and 222/2002 (Z.E. v. Switzerland), the Committee considered that the complainants had failed to demonstrate that they would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded, in each case, that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 145. In its decision on complaint No. 171/2000 (Jovica Dimitrov v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Committee found that the State party had violated article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, and articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention, as the complainant, a Serbian citizen of Roma origin, had been tortured in police custody and since the State party had failed to investigate his allegations and to ensure his right to complain about, and to obtain fair and adequate compensation for, the torture suffered. 146. In case No. 195/2002 (Mafhoud Brada v. France), the complainant, a former pilot of the Algerian air force, was deported to Algeria in spite of the Committee’s request to stay his deportation while his complaint was being considered and despite the fact that domestic proceedings were still pending before the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal, which subsequently ruled that the deportation violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on the Court’s conclusion that the complainant was at risk of torture in Algeria, the Committee found a violation of article 3 and, for the first time, of article 22 of the Convention, on the ground that the State party’s non-compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures had rendered futile the complainant’s right to complain conferred by article 22. 55