A/72/44 parties and are made available to the public. The text of the Committee’s decisions declaring complaints inadmissible or discontinuing the examination of a case are also made public, without disclosing the identity of the complainant, but identifying the State party concerned. B. Interim measures of protection 76. Complainants frequently request preventive protection, particularly in cases concerning imminent expulsion or extradition, where they allege a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Pursuant to rule 114, paragraph 1, of its rules of procedure, at any time after the receipt of a complaint, the Committee, through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, may transmit to the State party concerned a request that it take such interim measures as the Committee considers necessary to avoid irreparable damage to the victim(s) of the alleged violation(s). The State party shall be informed that such a request does not imply a determination of the admissibility or the merits of the complaint. During the reporting period, requests for interim measures of protection were received in 70 complaints, of which 45 were granted by the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, who regularly monitors the compliance of States parties with such requests. C. Progress of work 77. At the time of adoption of the present report, the Committee had registered, since 1989, 825 complaints concerning 38 States parties. 11 Of those, 234 complaints had been discontinued and 86 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits on 329 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 131 of them. Some 175 complaints were pending consideration. All the Committee’s decisions on the merits and those declaring a complaint inadmissible can be found in the treaty body case law database (http://juris.ohchr.org/), on the OHCHR website (www2.ohchr.org) and the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 78. At its fifty-eighth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of seven communications. In communication No. 682/2015, Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, the Committee found that the extradition of the complainant’s husband to Saudi Arabia constituted a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee found that the forcible return of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 595/2014, D.M. v. Australia, No. 599/2014, T. v. Australia, No. 600/2014, K.V. v. Australia, No. 608/2014, M.N. v. Australia, No. 609/2014, R.K. v. Australia and No. 616/2014, J.I. v. Sweden. 79. The Committee also found two communications, namely, No. 607/2014, R.K. v. Denmark and No. 627/2014, H. v. Sweden inadmissible, two communications, namely No. 650/2015, O.D. v. Morocco and No. 710/2015, A.M.A. v. Switzerland admissible, and discontinued the consideration of communications No. 645/2014, G.T. v. Australia and No. 559/2013, P.R. v. Switzerland. 80. At its fifty-ninth session, on 2 December 2016, the Committee held, for the first time since its creation, a meeting with judges from the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the René Cassin Foundation. The meeting covered issues of common interest relating to the individual complaints procedure and jurisprudence. During the same session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of 11 communications. The Committee found that the forcible return of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 581/2014, S.S. v. Canada, No. 582/2014, N.S. v. Canada, No. 633/2014, Y.S. v. Australia, No. 644/2014, R.O. et al. v. Sweden, No. 649/2015, K.N. v. 11 The complaints examined by the Committee in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as to Serbia and Montenegro, are attributed to Serbia for statistical purposes. 15