A/75/44 (CAT/C/68/D/826/2017), the Committee concluded that the complainant’s extradition to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In E.L.G. v. Spain (CAT/C/68/D/818/2017), concerning police ill-treatment of a detainee, followed by lack of prompt and impartial investigation, the Committee found violations of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 16, article 11, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, and article 16, read alone. In Zentveld v. New Zealand (CAT/C/68/D/852/2017), the Committee considered that the State party’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the acts of torture and ill-treatment suffered by the complainant while he was at the Child and Adolescent Unit of the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital amounted to a violation of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In Calfunao Paillalef v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/882/2018), the Committee considered that the deportation of the complainant to Chile would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 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 S.P. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/718/2015), S.W.R. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/855/2017), X v. Netherlands (CAT/C/68/D/863/2018) and T.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/68/D/860/2018). 62. The Committee also found one communication, H.S. v. Canada, (CAT/C/68/D/568/2013), inadmissible, and one communication, E.C. v. Ireland (No. 879/2018), admissible, and discontinued the consideration of M.B. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/646/2014), P.P. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/746/2016), D.M.D. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/763/2016), E.I.M. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/68/D/773/2016), B. v. Australia (CAT/C/68/D/815/2017), B.B. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/821/2017), Y v. Canada (CAT/C/68/D/848/2017), A.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/850/2017), N.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/864/2018), S.B. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/894/2018), A.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/68/D/897/2018) and N.G. v. Sweden (CAT/C/68/D/924/2019). The Committee also decided to postpone the examination of one complaint, D.L. v. Sweden (No. 785/2016), for the subsequent session. D. Follow-up activities 63. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee established the function of Rapporteur for follow-up on decisions adopted under article 22, which is currently held by Mr. Heller. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur should engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non-response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non-implementation of the Committee’s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by OHCHR would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow-up visits to States parties; and preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his or her activities. 64. During its sixty-seventh session, the Committee reviewed submissions related to eight cases that are currently monitored through the Committee’s follow-up procedure. The Committee decided to close the follow-up dialogue, despite an unsatisfactory resolution, with regard to the decision on A.M.D. et al. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/653/2015). The Committee reviewed the information received with regard to seven other decisions and decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing. The Committee also decided to mention the instances of non-implementation of the decisions on Aarrass v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/477/2011) and on Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014) in its annual report presented to the General Assembly. 65. During its sixty-eighth session, the Committee reviewed submissions related to 11 decisions that are currently monitored through the Committee’s follow-up procedure. The Committee decided to close the follow-up dialogue, with a note of satisfactory resolution, in regard to four decisions: R.G. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/56/D/586/2014), A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016), Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016) and M.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/811/2017). The Committee reviewed the information received with regard to seven other decisions: Aarrass v. Morocco, Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico 12