by the examining officer and the complainant will be heard orally if the Minister considers it necessary. Since the request for asylum was considered prior to the entry into force of the Immigration and Protection of Refugee’s Law, that is prior to June 2002, the immigration agent will not be restricted to assessing facts after the denial of the initial request but will be able to examine all the facts and information old and new presented by the complainant. In this context, it contests the Committee’s finding in paragraph 7.5 of its decision which found that only new information could be considered during such a review. Author’s response None Case Dadar, 258/2004 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Iranian to Iran Views adopted on 3 November 2005 Issues and violations found Removal - article 3 Interim measures granted and State party response Yes and State party acceded Remedy recommended The Committee urges the State party, in accordance with rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed above. Due date for State party response 26 February 2006 Date of reply 22 March 2006, 24 April 2006 State party response The State party refers to the note verbale from the Secretariat, dated 13 March 2006 (see below). However, it informed the Committee that it intended to remove the complainant to Iran on 26 March 2006. It submitted that it undertook a review of the file in light of the Committee’s determination but reiterated its opinion that it does not share the Committee’s view that the complainant has established that he 91