A/66/44 delivered a copy of the Committee’s decision to his home and requested his attendance for questioning. State party’s response On 9 August 2006, the State party informed the Committee that on 16 May 2006, the complainant came to the Canadian Embassy in Tehran to pursue certain personal and administrative issues in Canada unrelated to the allegations before the Committee. He did not complain of any illtreatment in Iran nor make any complaints about the Iranian authorities. As the complainant’s visit confirmed previous information received from his nephew, the Canadian authorities requested that this matter be removed from consideration under the follow-up procedure. On 5 April 2007, the State party responded to counsel’s comments of 24 June 2006. It stated that it had no knowledge of the complainant’s state of well-being and that his further questioning by the Iranian authorities would have been due to the discovery of the Committee’s decision. The State party regards this decision as an “intervening factor”, subsequent to his return that it could not have taken into account at the time of his return. In addition, the complainant’s concerns do not disclose any complaint that, were it to be made to the Committee, could give rise to a violation of a right under the Convention. Questioning by the authorities does not amount to torture. In any event, his fear of torture during questioning is speculative and hypothetical. Given Iran’s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the possibility for the complainant to use United Nations special procedure mechanisms such as the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, it considers the United Nations better placed to make enquiries about the complainant’s well-being. GE.11-45568 Complainant’s comments On 1 June 2007, counsel informed the Committee that but for the intervention of the complainant’s brother prior to his arrival in Tehran and during the period of his detention immediately following his arrival, with a high ranking member of the Iranian Intelligence Service, the complainant would have been tortured and possibly executed. He requests that the case not be removed from the Committee’s follow-up procedure. State party’s response On 10 October 2007, the State party reiterated that the complainant has not been tortured since his return to Iran. Therefore, Canada has fully complied with its obligations under article 3 of the Convention and is under no obligation to monitor the complainant’s condition. The absence of evidence of torture upon return supports Canada’s position that it should not be held responsible for a purported violation of article 3 when subsequent events confirm its assessment that the complainant was not at substantial risk of torture. In the circumstances, the State party reiterates its request that the case be removed from the agenda of the follow-up procedure. 163