CAT/C/55/2 would be for the Committee to be authorized by the Government concerned to carry out a follow-up visit one or two years after the conclusion of the inquiry. 20. Moreover, the planning and acceptance by the State party concerned of a follow-up visit would enhance the level of protection of those who have cooperated with the Committee because the authorities concerned would be aware of the possibility that the Committee could be contacted directly by those cooperating with and, therefore, that no act or threat of reprisal could be hidden. 21. Finally, the Committee should notify the State party under inquiry that cases of sanctions being applied to persons who have cooperated with the Committee would be included in a summary account of the proceedings relating to the inquiry and be made public. Article 22 22. As a preliminary measure to prevent reprisals against persons involved in the individual complaints procedure under article 22 of the Convention, the Committee could notify the State party concerned not to bring pressure to bear on or threaten the author of a communication when the Committee requests interim protection measures. If the issue arises upon registration, it is up to the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures to evaluate the situation and to decide whether to send such a warning. If the issue arises for a registered communication under the follow-up procedure, the Rapporteur on reprisals should evaluate the situation and decide on the course of action. 23. Similarly, representatives of complainants, such as lawyers, relatives or organizations, should be informed that the Rapporteur on reprisals could bring to the attention of the authorities of the State party concerned allegations of threats, acts of intimidation or other forms of reprisal and to approach representatives of the State party, as necessary, to make an official protest and ask for remedial action. 24. Similar action may be necessary also in cases of fear of reprisals. It appears that some complainants fear being subjected to reprisals simply for having submitted a complaint to the Committee. 25. This is even more evident in cases concerning article 3 of the Convention. The mere fact of requesting asylum because of an alleged risk of being tortured in the country of return may be perceived negatively by the authorities of that country and expose the complainant to reprisals if he or she is actually returned. 26. When there is a foreseeable, personal and real risk that a complainant who is about to be deported will be subjected to reprisals amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of deportation, the Committee considers that the principle of non-refoulement applies and will request the State party concerned to refrain from carrying out the deportation. 4