Due date for State party response None Date of reply None State party response No information provided Complainant’s response None State party NORWAY Case Dar, 249/2004 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Pakistani to Pakistan Views adopted on 11 May 2007 Issues and violations found Removal - article 22 Interim measures granted and State party response Requested but not acceded to by the State party.11 Remedy recommended None - State party has already remedied the breach Due date for State party response N/A 11 “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 Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the procedure of individual complaints established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the Convention (art. 18) vests it with competence to establish its own rules of procedure which become inseparable from the Convention to the extent they do not contradict it. In this case, rule 108 of the rules of procedure is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention, which otherwise would only offer asylum-seekers invoking a serious risk of torture a merely theoretical protection. By failing to respect the request for interim measures made to it, and to inform the Committee of the deportation of the complainant, the State party committed a breach of its obligations of cooperating in good faith with the Committee, under article 22 of the Convention. However, in the present case, the Committee observes that the State party facilitated the safe return of the complainant to Norway on 31 March 2006, and that the State party informed the Committee shortly thereafter, on 5 April. In addition, the Committee notes that the State party has granted the complainant a residence permit for 3 years. By doing so, it has remedied the breach of its obligations under article 22 of the Convention.” 125