Case Bachan Singh Sogi, 297/2006 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Indian to India Views adopted on 16 November 2007 Issues and violations found Removal - article 3 Interim measures granted and State party response Requested but rejected by the State party.6 Remedy recommended To make reparation for the breach of article 3 of the Convention, and to determine, in consultation with the country to which he was deported, the complainant’s current whereabouts and the state of his well-being. Due date for State party response 28 February 2008 Date of reply 7 April 2009 (the State party had previously responded on 29 February 2008 and 21 October 2008). State party response On 29 February 2008, the State party regretted that it was not in a position to implement the Committee’s Views. It did not consider either a request for interim measures of protection or the Committee’s Views themselves to be legally binding and is of the view that it has fulfilled all of its international obligations. Its failure to comply with the Committee’s Views should not be interpreted as disrespect for the Committee’s work. It submitted that the Government of India is better 6 “As regards non-compliance with the Committee’s requests of 14 and 30 June 2006 to suspend removal, the Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the procedure of individual complaints established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 108 of the rules of procedure, which is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. (See Dar v. Norway, communication No. 249/2004, Views of 11 May 2007, para. 16.3; and Tebourski v. France, communication No. 300/2006, Views of 1 May 2007, para. 8.6). Consequently the Committee considers that, by sending the complainant back to India despite the Committee’s repeated requests for interim measures, the State party has committed a breach of its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.” 149