A/73/44 66. On 9 May 2018, during its sixty-third session, the Committee held a thematic briefing on the European Union regulation No. 604/2013 — known as the Dublin Regulation — which established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the European Union member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one such member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person. The briefing included contributions from Niki Aloupi, a lecturer at the University of Strasbourg, Agnes Hurwitz, Senior Legal Officer at the Regional Bureau for Europe of UNHCR, and Olivier de Frouville, a member of the Human Rights Committee and a lecturer at the University of Paris 2 Assas, and enabled a discussion among the Committee members. The meeting, which was generously supported by the René Cassin Foundation, covered different experiences in interpreting the Regulation and its implications when considering individual complaints by those who allege that they would face inhuman or degrading treatment, not amounting to torture, in the first country of asylum within the European Union. At the session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of 10 communications. In communication No. 637/2014, D.G. v. Russian Federation, the Committee considered that the facts had revealed a violation by the State party of articles 2 (1), in conjunction with article 1, and 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention (torture, absence of investigation, forced confession). In communication No. 717/2015, A.Sh. et al. v. Switzerland, the Committee concluded that the complainants’ deportation to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In communication No. 750/2016, R.H. v. Sweden, the Committee concluded that the deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of article 3 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. 488/2012, Mugesera v. Canada (in which the Committee found, however, a violation of article 22 due to the non-respect of the interim measures request); 647/2014, C.Y. v. Denmark; 673/2015, Rasooli v. Switzerland; 698/2015, Z.K. and A.K. v. Switzerland; 703/2015, I.U.K. et al. v. Denmark, and 744/2016, H.A. v. Sweden. In communication No. 678/2015, I.K. v. Norway, the Committee concluded that the facts before if did not disclose any violation of the Convention. 67. The Committee also found communications No. 618/2014, I.P.W.F. v. Australia; No. 621/2014, E.O.S. v. Canada; 704/2015, M.N. v. Switzerland; 719/2015, H.A. and G.H. v. the Netherlands; 731/2016, L.Ch.B. v. Norway; 732/2016, Z.A. et al. v. Sweden; and 767/2016, U.A. v. Canada inadmissible and discontinued the consideration of communications No. 629/2014, K.K. et al. v. Sweden; 737/2016, S.K. v. Australia; 745/2016, N.H.N. v. Australia; 748/2016, A.T. v. Australia; 752/2016, M.K. v. Australia; 753/2016, S.X. v. Australia; 799/2017, W.J. v. Australia; and 830/2017, K.E. v. Australia. 68. Given the number of procedural decisions taken at each session, the Committee decided to establish an intersessional working group on individual complaints to rationalize its workload by considering the draft discontinuances and inadmissibility decisions before the session and reporting thereon to the plenary, effective from the sixty-fourth session. D. Follow-up activities 69. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee established the function of Rapporteur for follow-up to decisions on complaints submitted under article 22, which is held by Mr. Heller. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur should engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee’s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of nonresponse, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning nonimplementation of the Committee’s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by OHCHR would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow-up visits to States parties; and preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his or her activities. 70. During its sixty-second session, the Committee reviewed submissions related to 12 cases that are currently monitored through the Committee’s follow-up procedure. The 13