A/75/44 interim measures, who regularly monitors the compliance by States parties with such requests. C. Progress of work 58. As at 15 May 2020, the Committee had registered, since 1989, 1,003 complaints concerning 39 States parties.10 Of those, 300 complaints had been discontinued and 113 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits on 398 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 158 of them. During the reporting period, the Committee adopted two decisions of admissibility, and postponed the examination of three complaints. Some 192 complaints were pending consideration. All the Committee’s decisions on the merits, those declaring a complaint inadmissible and discontinuance decisions can be found in the treaty body case law database (http://juris.ohchr.org/), on the OHCHR website (www.ohchr.org/) and the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org/prod/ods.nsf/home.xsp). 59. At its sixty-seventh session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of five communications. In A v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CAT/C/67/D/854/2017), the Committee found a violation of article 14 (1), in conjunction with article 1 (1), of the Convention as the State party had failed to provide redress, including fair and adequate compensation, for the complainant, who had been found to be a victim of rape as a war crime against the civilian population committed during the armed conflict. In Ayaz v. Serbia (CAT/C/67/D/857/2017), the Committee concluded that the State party’s removal of the complainant to Turkey, despite a request for interim measures, constituted a violation of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. The Committee found that the forcible returns of the complainants would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the States parties in its decisions in V.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/67/D/723/2015), X v. Switzerland (CAT/C/67/D/775/2016) and X, Y and others v. Sweden (CAT/C/67/D/816/2017). 60. The Committee also found four communications, V.P. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/67/D/780/2016 and Corr.1), X v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/791/2016), M.Z. v. Belgium (CAT/C/67/D/813/2017) and B.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/67/D/828/2017), inadmissible, and one communication, A v. Morocco (No. 871/2018), admissible, and discontinued the consideration of J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/665/2015), J.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/67/D/700/2015), G.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/786/2016), M.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/787/2016), S.S. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/67/D/800/2017), J.N. v. Australia (CAT/C/67/D/806/2017), D.M. v. Finland (CAT/C/67/D/844/2017), B.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/67/D/849/2017) and J.E. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/67/D/906/2018). The Committee also decided to postpone the examination of two complaints, E.C. v. Ireland (No. 879/2018) and E.I.M. et al. v. Sweden (No. 773/2016) for the subsequent session. 61. At its sixty-eighth session, on 29 November 2019, the Committee held an exchange of views with the European Court of Human Rights, represented by Judge Carlo Ranzoni, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, represented by Judge Rafâa Ben Achour (via videoconference) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, represented by Carlos E. Gaio (via videoconference). At that meeting, which was generously supported by the René Cassin Foundation/International Institute of Human Rights, participants discussed the extraterritorial effects of the conventions and ratione temporis competence of the organs to assess admissibility requirements, and the relevant jurisprudence. During the session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of 10 communications. In Khater v. Morocco (CAT/C/68/D/782/2016), the Committee concluded that the extradition of the complainant to Egypt by the State party would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, and that the lack of fundamental legal safeguards and the detention conditions of the complainant amounted to a violation of article 16 of the Convention. In Aarrass v. Morocco (CAT/C/68/D/817/2017), the Committee found that the detention conditions of the complainant, including the de facto solitary confinement imposed on the complainant amounted to a violation of article 16 and of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with articles 1 and 11 of the Convention, and that the lack of redress provided to the complainant for his illtreatment amounted to a violation of article 14 of the Convention. In Bakay v. Morocco 10 The complaints examined by the Committee in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as to Serbia and Montenegro, are attributed to Serbia for statistical purposes. 11