A/73/44 found that the complainant was subjected to torture, in violation of article 2 (1), in conjunction with article 1, and articles 4 and 11–15 of the Convention. In communication No. 661/2015, Rakishev v. Kazakhstan, the Committee found a torture of the complainant’s son by the police that the State party failed to prevent and punish, in violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, and of articles 11–14 of the Convention. The Committee found that the forcible return or extradition of the complainants would constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 625/2014, G.I. v. Denmark, and No. 747/2016, H.Y. v. Switzerland. The Committee found that the forcible return of the complainant did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by the State party in its decision on communication No. 614/2014, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia; however, regarding the State party’s lack of compliance with the Committee’s request for interim measures, the Committee found a violation of article 22 of the Convention by the State party. The Committee found that the forcible removal of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 659/2015, R.R.L. et al. v. Canada, 690/2015, E.A. v. Sweden, 713/2015, Y.R. v. Australia, 720/2015, S.S. v. Australia, and 725/2016, G.E. v. Australia. 63. The Committee also found one communication, namely, No. 687/2015, Z.A.H. v. Canada, inadmissible, and discontinued the consideration of communications No. 457/2011, P.N. v. Canada, 515/2012, J.T. v. Canada, 590/2014, N.H.Z. v. Canada, 617/2014, N.A.L. et al. v. Canada, 755/2016, Hugues Mbele v. Switzerland, and 804/2017, L.G. and G.T. v. Finland. 64. At its sixty-second session, on 1 December 2017, the Committee held, for the first time since its creation, a joint meeting with judges and Secretariat from the European Court of Human Rights12 and the Inter American Court of Human Rights. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights was also invited but its representative could not attend the meeting. This meeting, which was generously supported by the René Cassin Foundation, covered issues of common interest relating to the individual complaints procedure and jurisprudence. During the session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of nine communications. In communication No. 493/2012, Damien Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, the Committee found that the complainant had been subjected to torture, in violation of article 2 (1), in conjunction with article 1, and articles 11–14 and 16 of the Convention. In communication No. 496/2012, Jean Ndagijimana v. Burundi, the Committee concluded that the beating of the complainant by police officers had amounted to torture, in violation of article 1, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1), and articles 12–14 of the Convention. In communication No. 672/2015, Vogel v. New Zealand, the Committee found that the complainant’s solitary confinement had amounted to a violation of his rights under article 16 of the Convention. In communication No. 675/2015, M.C.S. v. France, the Committee found that the rendition of the complainant to Spain by the State party, on the grounds of the European arrest warrant allegedly based on information obtained through forced confession, had not amounted to a violation of article 15 of the Convention. The Committee further found that the forcible return of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on communications No. 683/2015, I.E. v. Switzerland; 685/2015, H.I. et al. v. the Netherlands; No. 688/2015, T.Z. v. Switzerland; No. 710/2015, Abdulkarim v. Switzerland; and No. 721/2015, J.B. v. Switzerland. 65. The Committee also found communications No. 669/2015, Z.W. v. Australia; 695/2015, J.S. v. Canada; 696/2015, R.P. v. the Netherlands; 702/2015, S.S. and P.S. v. Canada; 712/2015, Olga Shestakova v. Russian Federation; 715/2015, S.S. v. Canada; and 722/2015, B.K. v. Norway inadmissible and discontinued the consideration of communications No. 597/2014, K.D.S. v. Canada; No. 636/2014, E.M. v. Germany; No. 663/2015, V.K.M. v. Sweden; No. 667/2015, T.A. and T.F. v. Switzerland; No. 692/2015, Ragulan Thurairajah v. the Netherlands; No. 707/2015, T.K. v. Australia; No. 711/2015, M.S.A. and D.A. v. Canada; No. 714/2015, K.V. v. Australia; and No. 781/2016, H.H. v. the Netherlands. 12 12 The first meeting took place on 2 December 2016 (see A/72/44, para. 80).