received in Canada to treat his medical condition. Moreover, the Iranian authorities had delivered a copy of the Committee’s decision to his home and requested his attendance for questioning. On 1 June 2007, counsel informed the Committee that but for the intervention of the complainant’s brother prior to his arrival in Tehran and during the period of his detention immediately following his arrival, with a high ranking member of the Iranian Intelligence Service, the complainant would have been tortured and possibly executed. He requests that the case not be removed from the Committee’s follow-up procedure. Action taken See the Committee’s annual report (A/61/44) for an account of the contents of notes verbales sent from the Special Rapporteur to the State party. Committee’s decision During the consideration of the follow-up at its thirty-sixth session, the Committee deplored the State party’s failure to abide by its obligations under article 3, and found that the State party violated its obligations under article 3 not to, “expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. The dialogue is ongoing. Case Bachan Singh Sogi, 297/2006 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Indian to India Views adopted on 16 November 2007 Issues and violations found Removal - article 3 Interim measures granted and State party Requested but rejected by the State party.7 7 “As regards non-compliance with the Committee’s requests of 14 and 30 June 2006 to suspend removal, the Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the 117