228. Pursuant to rule 112 of its rules of procedure, the Committee shall include in its annual report a summary of the communications examined. The Committee may also include in its annual report the text of its views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention and the text of any decision declaring a communication inadmissible. 229. During the period covered by the present report (fifteenth and sixteenth sessions) the Committee had 26 communications before it for consideration (Nos. 11/1993, 12/1993, 16/1994, 19/1994, 20/1994, 21/1995, 23/1995, 25/1995, 26/1995, 27/1995, 28/1995, 29/1995, 30/1995, 31/1995, 32/1995, 33/1995, 34/1995, 35/1995, 36/1995, 37/1995, 38/1995, 39/1996, 40/1996, 41/1996, 42/1996 and 43/1996). 230. At its fifteenth session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of communications Nos. 16/1994 and 20/1994. 231. Also at its fifteenth session, the Committee declared communications Nos. 30/1995 (P. M. P. K. v. Sweden), 32/1995 (N. D. v. France) and 35/1995 (K. K. H. v. Canada) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. Communication No. 26/1995 (X v. Canada) was declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, because the same matter was under consideration by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex V to the present report. 232. The Committee further declared inadmissible communications Nos. 23/1995 (X v. Spain) and 31/1995 (X and Y v. the Netherlands) because of failure to present a minimum substantiation of their claim under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee considered that the communications related to matters of political asylum, but that no evidence had been adduced that the authors could be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to their country of origin. The text of the decisions is reproduced in annex V to the present report. 233. At its sixteenth session, the Committee declared admissible communications Nos. 28/1995 and 39/1996. The two communications are therefore to be considered on their merits. 234. Also at its sixteenth session, the Committee adopted its views concerning three communications. With regard to communication No. 21/1995 (Alan v. Switzerland), the Committee found that, in the specific case of the complainant, a Kurd who had been imprisoned and tortured in the past and who had fled his country because the police were looking for him, his expulsion to Turkey would constitute a violation by Switzerland of its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The text of the views is reproduced in annex V to the present report. 235. With regard to communication No. 36/1995 (X v. the Netherlands), the Committee found that the expulsion of the author by the Netherlands to Zaire would not, in the specific circumstances of the case, constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention as referred to above. The text of the views is reproduced in annex V to the present report. 236. Concerning communication No. 41/1995 (Kisoki v. Sweden), the author was an activist of a political party opposed to the Government of Zaire who had escaped -38-