A/66/44 may be reviewed by the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, at the initiative of the State party, in the light of timely information received from that State party to the effect that the need for interim measures is not justified and the complainant does not face any prospect of irreparable harm, as well as subsequent comments, if any, from the complainant. The Rapporteur has taken the position that such requests need only be addressed if based on new and pertinent information which was not available to him or her when he or she took his or her initial decision on interim measures. 91. The Committee has conceptualized the formal and substantive criteria applied by the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures in granting or rejecting requests for interim measures of protection. Apart from timely submission of a complainant’s request for interim measures of protection under rule 114, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the basic admissibility criteria set out in article 22, paragraphs 1 to 5, of the Convention, must be met by the complainant for the Rapporteur to act on his or her request. The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies need not be fulfilled if the only remedies available to the complainant are without suspensive effect, i.e. remedies that, for instance, do not automatically stay the execution of an expulsion order to a State where the complainant might be subjected to torture, or if there is a risk of immediate deportation of the complainant after the final rejection of his or her asylum application. In such cases, the Rapporteur may request the State party to refrain from deporting a complainant while his or her complaint is under consideration by the Committee, even before domestic remedies have been exhausted. As for substantive criteria to be applied by the Rapporteur, a complaint must have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for it to be concluded that the alleged victim would suffer irreparable harm in the event of his or her deportation. 92. In cases concerning imminent expulsion or extradition where a complaint failed to establish a prima facie case with a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits that would allow the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures to conclude that the alleged victim would suffer irreparable harm in the event of his or her deportation, the complainant is requested in writing to confirm his or her interest in having his or her communication considered by the Committee, despite the rejection, by the Rapporteur, of the respective request for interim measures. 93. The Committee is aware that a number of States parties have expressed concern that interim measures of protection have been requested in too large a number of cases alleging violations of article 3 of the Convention, especially where the complainant’s deportation is alleged to be imminent, and that there are insufficient factual elements to warrant a request for interim measures. The Committee takes such expressions of concern seriously and is prepared to discuss them with the States parties concerned. In this regard it wishes to point out that in some cases, requests for interim measures are lifted by the Rapporteur, pursuant to rule 114, paragraph 3, and on the basis of pertinent State party information received that obviates the need for interim measures. C. Progress of work 94. At the time of adoption of the present report the Committee had registered, since 1989, 462 complaints concerning 29 States parties.6 Of those, 123 complaints had been discontinued and 62 had been declared inadmissible. The Committee had adopted final decisions on the merits on 181 complaints and found violations of the Convention in 60 of 6 GE.11-45568 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. 151