organization, amounted to a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. It emphasized that the obligation, in article 13, promptly and impartially to examine such allegations, including by a medical examination immediately following allegations of abuse, is not subject to the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under national procedures or an express statement of intent to that effect. It suffices for the alleged victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of the State party. 259.At its thirty-second session, the Committee declared one complaint admissible, to be considered on the merits, and declared inadmissible complaints Nos. 202/2002 (H.J. v. Denmark), 225/2003 (R.S. v. Denmark), 229/2003 (H.S.V. v. Sweden) and 243/2004 (S.A. v. Sweden). 260.Also at its thirty-second session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 135/1999 (S.G. v. The Netherlands), 148/1999 (A.K. v. Australia), 182/2001 (A.I. v. Switzerland), 183/2001 (B.S.S. v. Canada), 196/2002 (M.A.M. v. Sweden) and 214/2002 (M.A.K. v. Germany). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VII to the present report. 261.In its decisions on complaints Nos. 135/1999 (S.G. v. The Netherlands), 148/1999 (A.K. v. Australia), 182/2001 (A.I. v. Switzerland) and 196/2002 (M.A.M. v. Sweden), the Committee considered that the complainants had failed to demonstrate that they would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded, in each case, that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 262.In its decision on complaint No. 183/2001 (B.S.S. v. Canada), the Committee found that the complainant’s deportation to India, 13 years after he had allegedly been tortured by the Punjabi police, would not violate article 3 of the Convention, given that the evidence submitted by the complainant exclusively referred to his risk of being tortured in Punjab. It considered that the complainant had failed to substantiate that he would be unable to lead a life free of torture in another part of India and argued that, although resettlement outside Punjab would constitute a hardship for the complainant, the mere fact that he may not be able to return to his family and his home village would not as such amount to torture within the meaning of articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee declared inadmissible the complainant’s claim that his forcible return to India would subject him to severe emotional trauma, thereby violating article 16 of the Convention, and observed that, although his deportation may give rise to subjective fears, it would not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16. 263.In case No. 214/2002 (M.A.K. v. Germany), the complainant, a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, had applied for the reopening of asylum proceedings in Germany after his initial asylum application had been rejected by final decision of a German court. Although domestic judicial proceedings in relation to his application to reopen asylum proceedings were still pending, the Committee declared the complaint admissible, in the light of the fact that the complainant’s simultaneous application for an interim order staying his imminent deportation had been dismissed by final decision, and that the main proceedings had no suspensive effect. However, the Committee found that the complainant’s deportation to Turkey would not violate article 3 of the Convention, since he had failed to corroborate his claimed participation in a PKK training camp in the Netherlands, and because his participation in a highway blockade organized by PKK sympathizers in 1994, for which he had been sentenced to a suspended prison term, did not amount to the type of activity which would make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of being tortured upon return to Turkey. At the same time, the Committee welcomed the State party’s offer to monitor the complainant’s situation following his return to Turkey and requested it to keep the Committee informed about his situation. D. Follow-up activities 264.At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. The Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: (a)Monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by writing to States parties to inquire about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; (b)Recommending to the Committee appropriate action in situations of non response by States, and upon the receipt of letters from complainants concerning States’ failure to implement the Committee’s decisions; (c)Meeting with representatives of the States parties to encourage compliance with the Committee’s decisions and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by OHCHR would be appropriate or desirable; (d)Conducting, with the approval of the Committee, follow-up visits to States parties; (e)Preparing periodic reports to the Committee on his/her activities. 265.The Rapporteur on follow-up submitted the first written report to the Committee at its thirty-second session. The report contained information received up to 3 May 2004 from either the complainants or the States parties on the issue of follow-up to a number of decisions in which the Committee found violations of the Convention. The following country-by-country list contains a brief summary of such decisions and the follow-up information received. Serbia and Montenegro 266.Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, case No. 161/2000, decision adopted on 21 November 2002. The case concerned the burning and destruction of houses of Roma by non-Roma in April 1995. The Committee found violations of articles 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 of the Convention and recommended that a proper investigation into the facts be conducted, that the persons responsible for those acts be prosecuted and punished and that the complainants be provided with redress, including fair and adequate compensation. The Committee asked the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the decision,