83. Also at its thirty-ninth session, the Committee adopted Views on complaints Nos. 269/2005 (Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia), 297/2006 (Sogi v. Canada), 299/2006 (Iya v. Switzerland), 303/2006 (T.A. v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex XI, section A, to the present report. 84. Complaint No. 269/2005 (Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia), concerned a Tunisian national who alleged having been involved in human rights activities in Tunisia. His claims of having been subjected by the Tunisian police to severe pain and suffering were corroborated by medical certificates and other evidentiary materials. Despite abundant evidence that public officials had perpetrated the acts in question, the State party failed to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation. The Committee found a violation of the complainant’s right to have his case promptly and impartially investigated by the State party’s competent authorities, as well as of the right to obtain compensation. The Committee considered that the acts to which the complainant was subjected amounted to acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. It also considered that a delay of more than seven years before an investigation was initiated into allegations of torture was unreasonably long and did not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Convention. It also concluded that the State party did not fulfil its obligations under articles 13 and 14 of the Convention. 85. Complaint No. 297/2006 (Sogi v. Canada) concerned an Indian national accused of being a member of a Sikh militant terrorist organization, who alleged having been arrested and tortured several times in India on the basis of his alleged affiliation. He sought asylum in Canada, where his request for protection was denied on the ground of his membership in the Babbar Khalsa International terrorist group, which posed a threat to Canada’s national security. The complainant was deported to India after being held under arrest for nearly four years, on the basis of secret evidence, and was never allowed to know the charges or evidence against him. The Committee had requested the State party not to deport him while the case was under consideration by the Committee. The State party justified the decision by the fact that the complainant had failed to establish that he faced a substantial risk of torture in his country of origin. The complainant’s counsel reported that he was arrested by Indian police on arrival at the airport, taken to the Gurdaspur police station where he had been beaten and ill-treated, and subsequently charged with having supplied explosives to a person who had been convicted under Canadian law. The Committee established that, by the time he was returned to India, the complainant had provided sufficient evidence to the State party’s authorities to show that he ran a personal, real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture if he was returned to India. Furthermore, the complainant did not enjoy the necessary guarantees in the pre-removal procedure in Canada. Consequently, the Committee found that, by sending him back to India despite the Committee’s repeated requests for interim measures, the State party had committed a breach of its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. 86. In its views on complaint No. 299/2006 (Iya v. Switzerland), the Committee considered that the complainant’s case had never been examined on the merits by the State party’s competent authorities, as they had twice rejected his asylum request merely on the basis of his failure to submit identity documents within the initial deadline. The complainant’s two requests to reopen the procedures had also been rejected on procedural grounds. The Committee took into account that the State party had not presented sufficiently substantiated arguments to challenge the validity of the complainant’s evidence and his declarations. It found that the complainant’s political activities as a journalist and as a militant of a political opposition party in the 104