68. In complaint No. 174/2000 (Nikolic v. Serbia and Montenegro) the complainants claimed that the State party’s failure to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of the circumstances of their son’s death while being arrested by the police, constituted a violation of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Committee considered that a number of elements cast doubts on the sequence of events leading to the death of the complainants’ son, as established by the State party’s authorities. On the basis of such elements, it considered that there were reasonable grounds for the State party to investigate the complainants’ allegations that their son was tortured prior to his death. The question therefore arose whether the investigative measures taken by the authorities were commensurate to the requirement of article 12 of the Convention. After examining such measures the Committee concluded that the investigation had not been impartial and, therefore, there had been a violation of article 12. The Committee also observed that the courts based their finding that there had been no physical contact between the police and the complainants’ son exclusively on evidence that had been challenged by the complainants and which, according to them, was flawed by numerous inconsistencies. The courts dismissed the complainants’ appeals without addressing their arguments. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the State party’s courts failed to examine the case impartially, thereby violating article 13 of the Convention. 69. Complaints Nos. 231/2003 (S.N.A.W. v. Switzerland), 235/2003 (M.S.H. v. Sweden), 237/2003 (M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden), 238/2003 (Z.T. v. Norway), 245/2004 (S.S. v. Canada) and 254/2004 (S.S.H. v. Switzerland) concerned asylum-seekers claiming that their expulsion, return or extradition to their countries of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as they will be at risk of being subjected to torture. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainants as well as the arguments from the States parties concluded that such risk had not been established. Accordingly, no breach of article 3 was found. 70. In complaint No. 258/2004 (Mostafa Dadar v. Canada), the complainant was an Iranian national legally residing in Canada, against whom a Danger Opinion under the Immigration Act had been issued declaring him to be a danger to the public. As a result, he was ordered deported by the Canadian authorities. The complainant claimed before the Committee that his deportation would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Canada, as he would be at risk of being subjected to torture in Iran. After examining the arguments and evidence submitted to it, the Committee concluded that substantial grounds existed for believing that the complainant may risk being subjected to torture. Accordingly, his deportation would amount to a violation of the Convention. The Committee regrets that, despite the Committee’s finding, the State party deported the author to Iran. 71. At its thirty-sixth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 181/2001 (Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal), 256/2004 (M.Z. v. Sweden) and 278/2005 (A.E. v. Switzerland). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex VIII, section A, to the present report. 72. Complaint No. 181/2001 (Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal), concerned seven Chadian citizens who claimed having been victims of acts of torture committed by Chadian agents answerable directly to the then President Hissène Habré, between 1982 and 1990. 85