A/66/44 Committee registered as case No. 349/2008, claimed that that the first-named complainant’s deportation to Turkey would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. The first-named complainant was a member of the PKK who was arrested by the PKK for one month for having a relationship with a fellow soldier, his future wife. The first-named complainant “deserted” the PKK shortly before he left for Sweden. As in the communication of the first-named complainant’s wife, the Committee considered that the issue of whether the State party had an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, fell outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. Thus, the Committee found that this claim was inadmissible. For the reasons advanced by the Committee in its decision on communication No. 349/2008, Güclü v. Sweden, it considered that the first-named complainant provided sufficient evidence to show that he personally ran a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Turkey. As the case of the second-named complainant was dependent upon the case of the first, the Committee did not find it necessary to consider the case of the former, a minor child of the first-named complainant, separately. The Committee concluded that the State party’s decision to return the complainants to Turkey would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 101. At its forty-sixth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints No. 310/2007 (Chahin v. Sweden), No. 319/2007 (Singh v. Canada), No. 336/2008 (Singh Khalsa et al. v. Switzerland), No. 338/2008 (Mondal v. Sweden), No. 341/2008 (Hanafi v. Algeria), No. 350/2008 (R.T-N. v. Switzerland), No. 352/2008 (S.G. et al. v. Switzerland), No. 357/2008 (Jahani v. Switzerland), No. 369/2008 (E.C.B. v. Switzerland), No. 375/2009 (T.D v. Switzerland), No. 379/2009 (Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden) and No. 419/2010 (Ktiti v. Morocco). The text of these decisions is also reproduced in annex XII, section A, to the present report. 102. Complaint No. 310/2007 (Chahin v. Sweden) concerned a Syrian national claiming that his deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic in 1997 in execution of a judgment convicting him of manslaughter violated article 3 of the Convention because he was subsequently tortured. He also claimed that if the State party were again to deport him to the Syrian Arab Republic, from where he had returned to Sweden in 2003, such deportation would constitute another breach of article 3. With regard to the 1997 deportation, the Committee observed that the complainant’s contradictory statements about his nationality, his personal circumstances and his travel to Sweden had made it more difficult for the State party’s authorities to assess his risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Syrian Arab Republic. It concluded that the complainant had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that such risk was foreseeable for the State party at the time of his deportation, and declared this part of the complaint inadmissible. As regards the complainant’s current risk of torture in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Committee took note of a 1997 judgment of the Syrian Supreme State Security Council sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment for membership in a terrorist organization during the Lebanese civil war, as well as of two medical reports confirming that it was likely that he had been tortured in the past. In the light of the deterioration of the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic in connection with the Government’s crackdown on protests for political reforms earlier in 2011, the Committee found that the complainant’s deportation to the Syrian Arab Republic would expose him to a risk of being subjected to torture and would therefore amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 103. In complaint No. 319/2007 (Singh v. Canada) the complainant, an Indian Sikh, claimed that his forcible return to India would amount to a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The complainant also alleged that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the deportation decision. The Committee observed that reports submitted both by the complainant and the State party, confirm, inter alia, that numerous 154 GE.11-45568