236. In its views on communication No. 63/1997 (Josu Arkauz Arana v. France), the Committee confirmed its decision of admissibility and found that the State party had violated article 3 of the Convention by removing the author to Spain while there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of torture if returned to his country of origin. The Committee also emphasized that the fact that the author's expulsion was administrative in nature, without the intervention of a judicial authority and without the possibility of his contacting a lawyer or his family, appeared not to respect the rights of detained persons. 237. In its views on communication No. 96/1997 (A.D. v. Netherlands), the Committee recalled that granting an extended temporary permit for medical treatment to a person under an expulsion order was not sufficient to fulfil the State party's obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, in the case considered, the Committee concluded that there was no substantial ground for believing that the author would run a personal risk of being tortured if returned to Sri Lanka and there was therefore no breach of article 3 of the Convention. 238. In its views on communication No. 107/1998 (K.M. v. Switzerland), the Committee concluded that the information before it did not provide substantial grounds for believing that the author ran a personal risk of being tortured if returned to Turkey, his country of origin. It noted, in this regard, that the reasons for which the author left Turkey dated from 1995 and that he had had no contact with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) since then. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the authenticity of a document according to which the author had been charged for his collusion with the PKK could not be proved. 239. In its views on communication No. 118/1998 (K.T. v. Switzerland), the Committee found that the author had not furnished sufficient evidence to support his fears of being arrested and tortured if he was sent back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, his country of origin. The Committee therefore concluded that the decision of the State party to return the author to that country did not breach article 3 of the Convention. 240. At its twenty-fourth session, the Committee decided to discontinue consideration of five communications for reasons including the voluntary return of the author, the withdrawal of the communication or the absence of response from the author. In addition, the Committee declared inadmissible communications No. 140/1999 (A.G. v. Sweden) and No. 95/1997 (L.O. v. Canada) because they did not meet the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VII to the present report. 241. Also at its twenty-fourth session, the Committee adopted views in respect of communications Nos. 99/1997 (T.P.S. v. Canada), 116/1998 (N.M. v. Switzerland), 126/1999 (H.A.D. v. Switzerland), 130 and 131/1999 (V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden), 137/1999 (G.T. v. Switzerland), 143/1999 (J.S.C. v. Denmark). The texts of the Committee's views are reproduced in annex VIII to the present report. 242. In its views on communication No. 99/1997 (T.P.S. v. Canada), the Committee concluded that the removal of the author to India did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention because the author had resided more than two years in India since his removal without facing any acts that could amount to torture. Nevertheless, the Committee was deeply concerned by the fact that the State party did not accede to its request, as an interim measures under rule 108, paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure not to remove the author to India while his communication was pending before it. It considered that the State party, in ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee's competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with it in good faith in applying the procedure. Compliance with the provisional measures called for by the Committee in cases it considers reasonable is essential to protect the person in question from irreparable harm, which could, moreover, nullify the end result of the proceedings before the Committee. An individual opinion by one member is attached to the views of the Committee (see annex VII). 40