[T]he test of article 3 of the Convention is absolute. Whenever substantial grounds exist for believing that an individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon expulsion to another State, the State party is under obligation not to return the person concerned to that State. The nature of the activities in which the person concerned engaged cannot be a material consideration when making a determination under article 3 of the Convention. --Tapia Paez v. Sweden, Case No. 39/1996, Views adopted on 28 April 1997. ***** The Committee [against Torture] … records its concern at the following: … (b) The Special Control of Foreigners Act, known as the anti-terrorism law, allows foreigners suspected of terrorism to be expelled under a procedure which might not be in keeping with the Convention, because there is no provision for appeal. --CAT/C/XXVIII/CONCL.1, para. 6 (2002). ***** In Arana v. France, concerning the deportation in circumstances resembling extradition of an alleged terrorist, the Committee against Torture found violations of article 3 of the Convention against Torture as well as due-process rights: [T]he author had been convicted in France for his links with ETA, had been sought by the Spanish police and had been suspected, according to the press, of holding an important position within that organization. There had also been suspicions, expressed in particular by some non-governmental organizations, that other persons in the same circumstances as the author had been subjected to torture on being returned to Spain and during their incommunicado detention. The deportation was effected under an administrative procedure, which the Administrative Court of Pau had later found to be illegal, entailing a direct handover from police to police…. At the time of the consideration of the [previous] report…, the Committee expressed its concern at the practice whereby the police hand over individuals to their counterparts in another country … without the intervention of a judicial authority and without any possibility for the author to contact his family or his lawyer. That meant that a detainee's rights had not been respected and had placed the author in a situation where he was particularly vulnerable to possible abuse. The Committee recognizes the need for close cooperation between States in the fight against crime and for effective measures to be agreed upon for that purpose. It believes, however, that such measures must fully respect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the individuals concerned. --Arana v. France, Case No. 63/1997, Views adopted on 9 November 1999 (para. 11.5). 81