A/70/44 Switzerland; No. 495/2012, N.Z. v. Kazakhstan; No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi; No. 519/2012, T.M. v. Republic of Korea; and No. 520/2012, W.D.G. v. Canada. The Committee found communication No. 511/2012, Z. v. Australia, inadmissible. 71. The Committee found that the forcible return of the complainants would constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions in communications No. 321/2007, Mopongo and others v. Morocco; No. 450/2011, Fadel v. Switzerland; No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland; No. 473/2011, Khademi et al. v. Switzerland; No. 489/2012, Tahmuresi v. Switzerland; and No. 492/2012, Azizi v. Switzerland. The Committee found that the forcible return of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 458/2011, X. v. Denmark, No. 519/2012, T.M. v. Republic of Korea, and No. 520/2012, W.D.G. v. Canada. 72. In its decision on communication No. 482/2011, R.S. et al. v. Switzerland, the Committee also found that the forcible return of the complainants would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee, however, found a violation by the State party of article 22 of the Convention, because it did not comply with the Committee’s request not to extradite one of the complainants while his complaint was being considered. 73. In its decision on communication No. 495/2012, N.Z. v. Kazakhstan, the Committee considered, for the first time, the moment at which State party declarations under article 22, accepting the Committee’s competence to consider individual complaints, enter into force. Although the Convention specifies that the Convention enters into force for a State party 30 days after ratification, nothing is specified for the entry into force of a declaration under article 22. The Committee decided that any declaration made under article 22 after ratification of the Convention is immediately applicable and communications can be considered as of the date when such declaration is made. The Committee found no violation of any Convention rights in this communication. 74. In communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, the complainant was the former General Secretary of the People’s Reconciliation Party. On 1 August 2006, he was arrested and taken to the National Intelligence Service, questioned and asked to admit his alleged part in preparing a coup d’état and a plan to assassinate the President. The complainant was severely tortured by intelligence officers with steel chains, iron bars and other instruments. He was left half unconscious and put in an overcrowded cell where he remained for a week. On 9 August 2006, he was charged with involvement in an attempted coup d’état, and transferred to a prison. Although in critical condition, he was not allowed to see a doctor until 1 September 2006. He was detained without legal basis for more than five months in appalling conditions. He was released on 16 January 2007, having been acquitted. The Committee found a violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, of articles 12, 13, 14, 15 and of article 16, read in conjunction with article 11, and urged Burundi to conduct an impartial investigation and to provide adequate and fair compensation to the complainant, including means for full rehabilitation. 75. In communication No. 511/2012, Z. v. Australia, the complainant argued that the State party had violated article 14 of the Convention by failing to provide her with an enforceable right to redress and compensation for the State -inflicted torture she endured in China. The Committee observed that in the specific circumstances of the case, the State party was unable to establish jurisdiction over officia ls of another State for alleged acts committed outside the State party’s territory, and declared the communication inadmissible. 20/24 GE.15-13195