Remedy recommended Given the specific circumstances of the case, the deportation of the complainant and her daughter would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee wishes to be informed, within 90 days, from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the views expressed above. Due date for State party response 15 August 2005 Date of reply 17 August 2005 (was not received by OHCHR, so resent by the State party on 29 June 2006). State party response On 20 June 2005, the Board decided to revoke the expulsion decision regarding the complainant and her daughter and to grant them residence permits. Complainant’s response None Committee’s decision No further consideration under the follow-up procedure as the State party has complied with the Committee’s decision. Case Agiza, 233/2003 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Egyptian to Egypt Views adopted on 20 May 2005 Issues and violations found Removal - articles 3 (substantive and procedural violations) on two counts and 22 on two counts.13 13 (1) The Committee observes, moreover, that by making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention, the State party undertook to confer upon persons within its jurisdiction the right to invoke the complaints’ jurisdiction of the Committee. That jurisdiction included the power to indicate interim measures, if necessary, to stay the removal and preserve the subject matter of the case pending final decision. In order for this exercise of the right of complaint to be meaningful rather than illusory, however, an individual must have a reasonable period of time before execution of a final decision to consider whether, and if so to in fact, seize the Committee under its article 22 jurisdiction. In the present case, however, the Committee observes that the complainant was arrested and removed by the State party immediately upon the Government’s decision of expulsion being taken; indeed, the formal notice of decision was only served upon 144