occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan in the near future. It concluded that the complainant’s removal, and that of his family whose claim is dependent upon his, to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 92. In its decision on complaint No. 311/2007 (M.X. v. Switzerland), concerning the complainant’s allegation that his expulsion to Belarus would breach Switzerland’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee took note of the absence of sufficient evidence that would allow it to conclude that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in his country of origin. Accordingly, the Committee found that the complainant’s removal to Belarus would not breach article 3 of the Convention. D. Follow-up activities 93. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non-response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non-implementation of the Committee’s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow-up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his/her activities. 94. During its thirty-fourth session, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on follow-up to decisions, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including Decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow-up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee’s recommendations made in the Decisions. To date, the following countries have not yet responded to these requests: Canada (with respect to Tahir Hussain Khan, No. 15/1994); the Netherlands (with respect to Ali Jeljeli, No. 91/1997); Spain (Encarnación Blanco Abad, No. 59/1996, and Urra Guridi, No. 212/2002); Serbia and Montenegro (with respect to Dimitrov, No. 171/2000, Danil Dimitrijevic, No. 172/2000, Nikolić, Slobodan and Ljiljana, No. 174/2000 and Dragan Dimitrijevic, No. 207/2002); and Tunisia (with respect to Ali Ben Salem, No. 269/2005). 95. Action taken by the States parties in the following cases complied fully with the Committee’s Decisions and no further action will be taken under the follow-up procedure: Halimi-Nedibi Quani v. Austria (No. 8/1991); M.A.K. v. Germany (No. 214/2002);4 4 Although no violation was found in this case, the Committee welcomed the State party’s readiness to monitor the complainant’s situation and subsequently provided satisfactory information in this regard (see chart below). 106