of the State party, in the light of information and comments received from the State party and any further comments, if any, from the complainant. Some States parties have adopted the practice of systematically requesting the Rapporteur to withdraw his request for interim measures of protection. The Rapporteur has taken the position that such requests need only be addressed if based on new information which was not available to him when he took his initial decision on interim measures. 61. The Committee has conceptualized the formal and substantive criteria applied by the Rapporteur for new complaints and interim measures in granting or rejecting requests for interim measures of protection. Apart from timely submission of a complainant’s request for interim measures of protection under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the basic admissibility criteria set out in article 22, paragraphs 1 to 5, of the Convention, must be met by the complainant for the Rapporteur to act on his or her request. The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies can be dispensed with, if the only remedies available to the complainant are without suspensive effect, i.e. remedies that do not automatically stay the execution of an expulsion order, or if there is a risk of immediate deportation of the complainant after the final rejection of his or her asylum application. In such cases, the Rapporteur may request the State party to refrain from deporting a complainant, while his or her complaint is under consideration by the Committee, even before domestic remedies have been exhausted. As for substantive criteria to be applied by the Rapporteur, a complaint must have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for it to be concluded that the alleged victim would suffer irreparable harm in the event of his or her deportation. 62. The Committee is aware that a number of States parties have expressed concern that interim measures of protection have been requested in too large a number of cases, especially where the complainant’s deportation is alleged to be imminent, and that there are insufficient factual elements to warrant a request for interim measures. The Committee takes such expressions of concern seriously and is prepared to discuss them with the States parties concerned. In this regard it wishes to point out, that in many cases, requests for interim measures are lifted by the Special Rapporteur, on the basis of pertinent State party information. C. Progress of work 63. At the time of adoption of the present report the Committee had registered since 1989, 292 complaints with respect to 24 countries. Of them, 80 complaints had been discontinued and 52 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits with respect to 123 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 36 of them. Thirty-four complaints remained pending for consideration and 3 were suspended. 64. At its thirty-fifth session, the Committee declared inadmissible complaints Nos. 242/2003 (R.T. v. Switzerland), 247/2004 (A.H. v. Azerbaijan) and 250/2004 (A.H. v. Sweden). Complaints Nos. 242/2003 and 250/2004 concerned claims under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee decided to declare them inadmissible for lack of substantiation and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies respectively. 65. Complaint No. 247/2004 concerned claims of violation of articles 1, 2, 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee noted that the complainant had filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights which was declared inadmissible on 29 April 2005. It recalled 83