However, the State party informs the Committee that the law has been amended and that since 22 February 2008, to the extent that the nomination of a “special lawyer” is authorized to defend the individual in his absence and in the absence of his own lawyer, when such information is considered in camera. As to the Committee’s point that it is entitled to freely assess the facts of each case (para. 10.3), the State party refers to jurisprudence in which the Committee found that it would not question the conclusion of national authorities unless there was a manifest error, abuse of process, or grave irregularity etc. (see cases 282/2005 and 193/2001). In this context, it submits that the delegate’s decision was reviewed in detail by the Court of Federal Appeal, which itself reviewed all the original documentation submitted to support his claims as well as new documents and found that it could not conclude that the delegate’s conclusions were unreasonable. Complainant’s response None Committee’s decision The Committee considers the follow-up dialogue ongoing. State party FRANCE Case Arana, 63/1997 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Spanish to Spain Views adopted on 9 November 1999 Issues and violations found Complainant’s expulsion to Spain constituted a violation of article 3. 120