question of admissibility, including information relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (rule 108, para. 3). Within six months after the transmittal to the State party of a decision of the Committee declaring a communication admissible, the State party shall submit written explanations or statements to the Committee clarifying the matter under consideration and the remedy, if any, which has been taken by it (rule 110, para. 2). In cases that require expeditious consideration, the Committee invites the States parties concerned, if they have no objections to the admissibility of the communications, to furnish immediately their observations on the merits of the case. 229. The Committee concludes examination of an admissible communication by formulating its views thereon in the light of all information made available to it by the complainant and the State party. The views of the Committee are communicated to the parties (art. 22, para. 7, of the Convention and rule 111, para. 3, of the rules of procedure of the Committee) and are made available to the general public. Generally the text of the Committee's decisions declaring communications inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention are also made public, without the identity of the author of the communication being disclosed but with the State party concerned being identified. 230. In its work under article 22 of the Convention, the Committee strives to arrive at its decisions by consensus. However, pursuant to rule 111, paragraph 4, of the Committee's rules of procedure, members can add their individual; opinions to the Committee's views. During the period under review, an individual opinion was appended to the Committee's views in case No. 99/1999 (TPS v. Canada). 231. 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. 232. At the time of adoption of the present report the Committee had registered 163 communications with respect to 19 countries. Of them, 45 communications had been discontinued and 34 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted views with respect to 45 communications and found violations of the Convention in 18 of them. Thirty-nine communications remained outstanding. 233. At its twenty-third session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of one communication and declared one communication admissible, to be considered on the merits. In addition, the Committee declared inadmissible communications Nos. 86/1997 (P.S. v. Canada), 93/1997 (K.N. v. France), 121/1998 (S.H. v. Norway) and 127/1999 (Z.T. v. Norway), because they did not meet the conditions laid down in article 22, subparagraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VIII to the present report. 234. Also at its twenty-third session, the Committee adopted views in respect of communications Nos. 60/1996 (Khaled Ben M'Barek v. Tunisia), 63/1997 (Josu Arkauz Arana v. France), 96/1997 (A.D. v. Netherlands), 107/1998 (K.M. v. Switzerland), and 118/1998 (K.T. v. Switzerland). The texts of the Committee's views are reproduced in annex VIII to the present report. 235. In its views on communication No. 60/1996 (Khaled Ben M'Barek v. Tunisia), the Committee considered that the documents communicated to it furnished no proof that the State party had breached articles 11 and 14 of the Convention, but estimated that the State party had not complied with its obligations under articles 12 and 13 to proceed with a prompt and impartial investigation. The Committee considered that an investigation carried out more than 10 months after a foreign non-governmental organization had raised the alarm on the case and more than two months after a report of the Tunisian Higher Committee of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom asked for a new inquiry did not meet the requirement of promptness. It also considered that the investigation lacked impartiality because, inter alia, the Public Prosecutor 6 a position which in the Tunisian system is under the authority of the Minister of Justice 6 failed to appeal the decision to dismiss the case. 39