A/66/44 them. Ninety-three complaints were pending for consideration and two were suspended, pending exhaustion of domestic remedies. 95. At its forty-fifth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints No. 333/2007 (T.I. v. Canada), No. 339/2008 (Amini v. Denmark), No. 344/2008 (A.M.A. v. Switzerland), No. 349/2008 (Güclü v. Sweden) and No. 373/2009 (Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex XII, section A, to the present report. 96. Complaint No. 333/2007 (T.I. v. Canada) concerned a national of Uzbekistan of a Tatar ethnicity, who claimed that his deportation to Uzbekistan would constitute a violation by Canada of articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, as he would be at risk of being subjected to torture on account of his ethnic origin. While acknowledging that the human rights situation in Uzbekistan was indeed poor, the Committee noted, however, that the complainant had not provided sufficient information to support his claim that Tatars, and therefore he himself, were discriminated against to an extent that would place him at a particular risk of torture in Uzbekistan. The Committee further noted that despite several inquiries about medical or any other documentary evidence in support of his account of events in Uzbekistan prior to his departure, which would corroborate his claims or demonstrate possible effects of the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected, the complainant did not provide any such evidence. Neither did he provide any report of a medical examination after his arrival in Canada. The Committee, therefore, concluded on the merits that the complainant failed to establish his claim that he would personally be exposed to a substantial risk of being subjected upon his return to Uzbekistan, and that his removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 97. In complaint No. 339/2008 (Amini v. Denmark), the complainant claimed that his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by Denmark, because of the risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the Iranian authorities, given his active involvement in a monarchist group called “Refrondom Komite” (the Committee for Reformation on the Wall), a subgroup of the Royalist Party. This fear was based on the fact that he had been tortured in the past as a result of his political activities, that there remained an open case against him before the Iranian authorities and that he had recommenced such political activities from Denmark. The Committee found that it was probable, based on the medical reports provided by the complainant which indicated that his injuries were consistent with his allegations, that he had been detained and tortured as alleged. It also noted that the State party did not dispute this claim of past torture but argued that he was unlikely to have been subjected to torture on the basis of involvement with the monarchists, given their low level of activity in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As to the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Committee expressed its concern about the deteriorating situation since the elections of June 2009, including with respect to a report of six independent United Nations experts in July 2009 who questioned the legal basis for the arrests of journalists, human rights defenders, opposition supporters and scores of demonstrators, giving rise to concern for the arbitrary detention of individuals legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression, opinion and assembly. In particular, the Committee was concerned about reports that monarchists had been recently targeted in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the light of these considerations, including the complainant’s corroborated claims of past torture, the Committee was of the view that there were sufficient arguments to conclude that the complainant would face a personal risk of torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran and that his forcible return to that country would constitute a breach by Denmark of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. 98. In complaint No. 344/2008 (A.M.A. v. Switzerland), the complainant claimed that he would be in danger in his country of origin, Togo, as a witness to the throwing of dead 152 GE.11-45568