Tribunal Members. The State party advises the Committee that his new application was comprehensively assessed in light of new evidence which arose following the Committee’s consideration. The Tribunal was not satisfied as to the complainant’s credibility and did not accept that he is who he says he is - the son of a leading elder of the Shikal clan. Author’s response N/A Committee’s decision In light of the complainant’s voluntary departure no further action was requested under follow-up. State party AZERBAIJAN Case Pelit, 281/2005 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Turkish to Turkey Views adopted on 30 April 2007 Issues and violations found Removal - articles 3 and 22 Interim measures granted and State party response Granted but not acceded to by the State party (assurances had been granted).7 Remedy recommended To remedy the violation of article 3 and to consult with the Turkish authorities on the whereabouts and state of well-being of the complainant. Due date for State party response Not yet due (not yet implemented). State party CANADA Case Tahir Hussain Khan, 15/1994 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Pakistani to Pakistan 7 The Committee expressed its concern and reiterated that once a State party makes a declaration under article 22 of the Convention, it voluntarily accepts to cooperate in good faith with the Committee under article 22; the complainant’s expulsion had rendered null the effective exercise of her right to complain. 103