Additional observations by the State party and counsel 6.1 On 14 December 1998, the State party provided the Committee with additional observations in response to counsel's comments. It pointed out that counsel's comments regarding the non-deportation from the Netherlands of Sri Lankan asylum-seekers was incorrect. In spring 1998 the State Secretary for Justice of the Netherlands considered it unnecessary to change the policy on expelling asylum-seekers in connection with the situation in Sri Lanka. On 23 June 1998, the State Secretary for Justice informed the Lower House of Parliament that rejected Tamil asylum-seekers would not be expelled from the Netherlands, pending a court judgement on an appeal brought by a Tamil and in the light of the injunction granted in that case. The decision not to expel this category of person during a certain period of time was thus a procedural matter. In a judgement of 9 October 1998, the Hague District Court considered that the State Secretary for Justice could in all reasonableness have concluded that expelling rejected Tamil asylum-seekers to Sri Lanka could not be construed as a particularly harsh measure. The present policy of returning Sri Lankan asylum-seekers is therefore still in place. 6.2 The State party further informed the Committee that, on 17 November 1998, the State Secretary for Justice had informed counsel that the author might be eligible for a residence permit for medical treatment. According to the State party's information, the author had applied for such a permit, which was likely to be granted within a foreseeable period. The State party submitted that once the author had received a residence permit for medical treatment, he would no longer be at risk of expulsion and the grounds for his application to the Committee would cease to exist. 6.3 On 22 April 1999, counsel informed the Committee that the author had not yet received any residence permit for medical treatment. Furthermore, such a permit would be temporary and expire when the medical treatment was no longer necessary in the view of the medical adviser to the Ministry of Justice. Counsel submits that such a permit only postpones the expulsion risk, and that this is inadequate in order to fulfil the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. 6.4 By submission of 28 October 1999, the State party informed the Committee that, on 7 June 1999, the State Secretary of Justice had granted the author a residence permit for medical treatment, valid from 9 December 1998 until 30 September 1999.a Furthermore, the author had requested an extension of this permit. There was no risk of expulsion while his request was under consideration. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes the State party's view that the author has exhausted domestic remedies and that it accepts the admissibility of the communication. The Committee finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. Since both the State party and the author's counsel have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of such merits. 7.2 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, a Counsel confirmed that information. 93