CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 circumstances occurs since, pursuant to section 50 of the Aliens Act, an expelled alien is entitled to only one judicial review of the question of expulsion. The author therefore alleges a violation of article 13 of the Covenant because of the impossibility to have the expulsion decision reconsidered again, in view of his current personal circumstances. 3.6 The author submits that the State party’s attempts to execute the expulsion decision by presenting him to the Afghan authorities at border control at Kabul International Airport constitute a violation of the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding concluded on 18 October 2004 between the Islamic Transitional State of Afghanistan, the Government of Denmark and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 3.7 The author suspects that there might be an agreement between Denmark and Afghanistan, which may not have been made public and which allegedly came into effect in December 2012, whereby the Afghan authorities would accept repatriations in circumstances that do not meet international standards. 3.8 The author maintains that if he is presented at Afghan border control for the purpose of identification, he would not have access to counsel, and would thus be deprived of an important safeguard against acts of torture or ill-treatment, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party’s request to review the interim measures 4.1 On 18 July 2013, the author sought additional interim measures, asking the Committee to request the State party to release him from detention. On 30 July 2013, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures denied the request for additional interim measures. 4.2 In its submission dated 8 October 2013, the State party indicated that the return scheduled for 13 May 2013 was cancelled further to the Committee’s request to refrain from returning the author to Afghanistan while his case was under consideration by the Committee. 4.3 The State party invites the Committee to review its request for interim measures. The State party indicates that, although the author would possibly suffer personal inconvenience should he be returned to Afghanistan, there are no special or compelling circumstances in the case that would cause him to suffer irreparable damage. The State party notes that the author is not claiming that his safety or life would be in jeopardy if he is returned to Afghanistan. Furthermore, he would not be barred from re-admission to Denmark, should the Committee rule in his favour. The State party refers to the case of Stewart v. Canada6 and notes that it has, on a previous occasion, re-admitted a person to Denmark as the consequence of a decision adopted by the Committee against Torture.7 4.4 On 10 October 2013, the author asks the Committee to maintain its request for interim measures. On 24 October 2013, the author provides detailed information on his family life and visits to and from his children and ex-wife, which confirms that a real family life exists to the extent possible for someone in detention. While serving his prison sentence, the author had regular leaves from prison (up to 48 hours at a time) to visit his exwife and children, who also regularly visited him in prison. Since being in detention pending his return to Afghanistan, the author has not been allowed to leave the centre, but his ex-wife and children visit him at least once a week. 6 7 6 Communication No. 538/1993, Stewart v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 1994, para. 7.7. See Committee against Torture, communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012.