Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author of the complaint, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22 of the Convention. 1.1The complainant in the case dated 4 January 2000 is Z.T. She submits the case on behalf of her brother, R.T., an Algerian citizen born on 16 July 1967. She claims that her brother is a victim of violations by Australia of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. She is represented by counsel. 1.2On 26 January 2000, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State party for comments and requested it, under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to return the complainant to Algeria while his complaint was under consideration by the Committee. The State party, however, expelled the complainant the same day without having had time to consider the request. The facts as submitted by the complainant 2.1On 27 November 1997, the complainant, who held a visitor’s visa, visited Mecca in Saudi Arabia. He stayed there for seven months. He then “purchased” an Australian visa and left for South Africa, to collect the Australian visa. 2.2On 21 August 1998, the complainant arrived in Australia from South Africa. He destroyed his travel documents at the airport of arrival. He immediately applied for refugee status at the airport, where he was interviewed by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). As undocumented arrival, he was refused immigration clearance under s172 of the Australian Immigration Act. On the same day, he was detained and escorted to Westbridge Immigration Detention Centre. 2.3On 26 August 1998, the complainant applied for a protection visa. He was assisted by a solicitor from the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. On 16 October 1998, his application was rejected by DIMA. On 16 October 1998, he appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal. The appeal was rejected on 11 November 1998. He further appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed his appeal on 10 March 1999. 2.4The complainant did not appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Australia to the Full Federal Court because his representatives were of the view that, in light of the narrow grounds of review available in the Federal Court, an appeal did not have any prospect of success and therefore did not fall within the guidelines which determine whether legal aid can be granted. He alleges that without legal aid it would have been likely that he would have been unrepresented in his appeal. 2.5The complainant sent three subsequent appeals to the Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 17 March 1999, 6 July 1999, and 26 August 1999. He requested the Minister to exercise his discretion and allow him to stay in Australia on humanitarian grounds. The Minister declined to exercise his discretion in an undated letter received by counsel on 22 July 1999, and a further letter dated 23 August 1999. The Minister’s decision was not subject to appeal. On 29 October 1999, an immigration agent from the South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service appealed to the Minister asking to allow the complainant to remain in Australia on humanitarian grounds; the director of Amnesty International Australia also submitted a letter, requesting that the complainant would not be returned “in the foreseeable future”. 2.6The complainant and another two asylum-seekers thereupon started a hunger strike in September 1999. On 8 October 1999, they were removed from Westbridge. They were denied the opportunity to consult with their legal advisers and were not permitted to pack their own belongings. On 16 October 1999, they submitted a complaint to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. 2.7The complainant alleges that he was not notified of the decision to remove him from Australia. He was effectively removed to South Africa on 26 January 2000. 2.8In an additional letter dated 12 April 2000, Ms. T. provides further information about her brother. She states that her brother, after his expulsion from Australia, was held for one or two days at an airport hotel in Johannesburg. He was then handed over to South African government officials and was detained as an illegal arrival in the Lindela detention centre for more than 30 days. 2.9On or about 7 February 2000 he filed an asylum application and was granted a temporary visa, which allowed him to be released from detention. 2.10On or about 30 January 2000, the complainant was told to expect a visit from the Algerian Ambassador to South Africa. The purpose of the visit was to provide documentation for onwards travel to Algeria. The visit did not take place, after interventions from the complainant’s lawyer. 2.11The complainant claims that he does not feel safe in South Africa after his expulsion from Australia. He argues that there is no guarantee under South African law that he cannot be expelled at any time. His concern about the actions of the South African Government include the notification of the Algerian Ambassador of his presence in South Africa; accepting and then revoking acceptance of an asylum application and revoking the grant of temporary visa; his detention beyond the statutory limit of 30 days in the Lindela detention centre. He claims that because of arms trade between the Governments of South Africa and Algeria, he fears his application will be rejected in deference to trade imperatives. 2.12It is submitted that the complaint has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture