determination that he did not face a substantial risk of torture upon return to Iran, the State party submits that it was not necessary for it to consider the issue of monitoring mechanisms in this case. (For a full account of the State party’s response, see A/61/44.) On 9 August 2006, the State party informed the Committee that on 16 May 2006, the complainant came to the Canadian Embassy in Tehran to pursue certain personal and administrative issues in Canada unrelated to the allegations before the Committee. He did not complain of any ill-treatment in Iran nor make any complaints about the Iranian authorities. As the complainant’s visit confirmed previous information received from his nephew, the Canadian authorities requested that this matter be removed from consideration under the follow-up procedure. On 5 April 2007, the State party responded to counsel’s comments of 24 June 2006. It stated that it had no knowledge of the complainant’s state of well-being and that his further questioning by the Iranian authorities would have been due to the discovery of the Committee’s decision. The State party regards this decision as an “intervening factor”, subsequent to his return that it could not have taken into account at the time of his return. In addition, the complainant’s concerns do not disclose any complaint that, were it to be made to the Committee, could give rise to a violation of a right under the Convention. Questioning by the authorities does not amount to torture. In any event, his fear of torture during questioning is speculative and hypothetical. Given Iran’s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the possibility for the complainant to use United Nations special procedure mechanisms such as the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, it considers the United Nations better placed to make enquiries about the complainant’s well-being. 115