Complainant’s response On 31 October 2006, the complainant’s counsel responded that he had a meeting with the Ambassador of the Swedish Embassy on 24 January 2006. During this meeting, counsel emphasized that it was essential that the embassy continue their visits as regularly as it has been doing. Counsel requested the State party to consider having a retrial in Sweden or to allow him to complete his imprisonment there, but the State party responded that no such steps were possible. In addition, requests for compensation ex gratia had been refused and it was suggested that a formal claim should be lodged under the Compensation Act. This has been done. According to counsel, although the monitoring aspect of the State party’s efforts is satisfactory its efforts as a whole were said to be inadequate with respect to the request for contact with his family in Sweden, a retrial etc. On 20 July 2007, counsel reported that the meetings between Mr. Agiza and staff from the Swedish Embassy took place under the presence of prison officials and were video recorded. The officials had ordered Mr. Agiza not to express any critics against the prison conditions and he was under the threat of being transferred to a far remote prison. Furthermore, the medical treatment he received was insufficient and suffered, inter alia, from neurological problems which caused him difficulties to control his hands and legs, as well as from urination difficulties and a problem with a knee joint. The State party has repealed the expulsion decision of 18 December 2001. However, no decision has been taken yet by the Migration Board and the Chancellor of Justice. Further action taken/or required The State party provided follow-up information during the examination of its third periodic report to the Committee, which took place during the Committee’s fortieth session, 147