intervention of a judicial authority and without any possibility for the author to contact his family or his lawyer. That meant that a detainee’s rights had not been respected and had placed the author in a situation where he was particularly vulnerable to possible abuse. The Committee recognizes the need for close cooperation between States in the fight against crime and for effective measures to be agreed upon for that purpose. It believes, however, that such measures must fully respect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the individuals concerned. 12. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee is of the view that the author’s expulsion to Spain, in the circumstances in which it took place, constitutes a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. 13. Pursuant to rule 111, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee would wish to receive, within 90 days, information on any measure taken by the State party in accordance with these Views. Communication N° 99/1997 Submitted by: T.P.S. (name withheld) Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of adoption of Views: 16 May 2000 Subject matter: deportation of complainant to India and exposure to alleged risk of torture counsel. It is not clear whether he claims to be innocent, but he argues that his trial was unfair and the ensuing conviction unlawful. Procedural issues: exhaustion of domestic remedies; failure to comply with request for interim measures 2.2 In October 1994, the Government of Pakistan released the author and his co-accused on the condition that they leave the country. The author states that he could not return to India for fear of persecution. With the assistance of an agent and using a false name and passport, he arrived in Canada in May 1995. Upon arrival he applied for refugee status under his false name and did not reveal his true identity and history. In September 1995, the author was arrested and kept in detention by Immigration authorities. He was later released on the condition that he reports once a week to a Vancouver immigration office. Substantive issues: risk of torture after deportation; exception for serious crimes (art. 1F of Refugee Convention) Article of the Convention: 3 1. The author of the communication is Mr. T.P.S., an Indian citizen born in 1952 who was seeking asylum in Canada at the time the communication was registered. He claimed that his forcible return to India would constitute a violation by Canada of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. He is represented by counsel. 2.3 At the end of 1995, an immigration inquiry was opened against the author to determine whether he had committed an offence outside Canada which, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence punishable by a maximum prison term of 10 years or more. His refugee application was suspended. In the beginning of 1996, an adjudicator decided that the author had committed such an offence and, as a result, a conditional deportation order was issued against him. At the same time the Canadian Minister of Immigration was requested to render an opinion whether the author constituted a danger to the Canadian public. Such a finding by the Minister would prevent the author from having his refugee claim heard and would remove his avenues of appeal under the Immigration Act. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 In January 1986, the author and four coaccused were convicted by a Pakistani court of hijacking an Indian Airlines plane in September 1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Counsel explains that no violence was used during the hijacking and that the plane, which was on its way from New Delhi to Amritsar, landed safely in Lahore, where it was diverted. There were no reports that any passenger had been mistreated. The purpose of the hijacking was to draw attention to the general maltreatment of Sikhs by the Indian Government. The author states that he was arrested within hours of the plane landing and forced to sign a confession at gunpoint. He also states that he was held in pretrial detention for four years without access to 2.4 The author successfully appealed the adjudicator’s decision and a new inquiry was 51