naturalized French citizens stripped of their nationality by a court decision and foreigners who had hitherto been lawfully resident in France. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that individuals thus convicted of an offence might be returned to States where they would be in danger of being subjected to torture (art. 3). The Committee recommends that the State party should take all necessary measures to guarantee that no person is expelled who is in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to a third State. The Committee also recommends that the State party ensure that the persons concerned have the right to a fair trial where the measure taken is in conformity with the law. The Committee also emphasizes that expulsion should not be used as a punitive measure. The Committee further recommends that the State party should provide it with information on allegations it has received concerning the collective arrest of persons with a view to placing them in administrative holding centres pending their return to a third State. (11) The Committee notes that, following the deaths of Mr. Ricardo Barrientos and Mr. Mariame Geto Hagos during their forcible removal in 2002, new instructions on the removal of foreigners lacking proper papers were issued on 17 June 2003, which ban any form of gagging, compression of the thorax, bending of the trunk and binding together of the limbs, and authorize only the professional techniques that are specified in the instructions and that comply with medical regulations (art. 3). The Committee recommends that the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure the effective implementation of these instructions by the officers in charge of removal operations. The State party should also authorize the presence of human rights observers or independent doctors during all forcible removals by air. It should also systematically allow medical examinations to be conducted before such removals and after any failed removal attempt. (12) The Committee notes that, under rule 108 (1) of its rules of procedure, it requested the State party through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, in a letter dated 19 December 2001, to defer the expulsion of a complainant because there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin, and that the State party did not see fit to respond favourably to the Committee’s recommendation. The Committee reminds the State party that in making its declaration under article 22, whereby it recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of the provisions of the Convention by the State party, the latter undertakes to act in good faith on the Committee’s recommendations. The State party’s failure to comply with the Committee’s request for interim measures is a serious breach of its obligations under article 22 of the Convention, since it prevented the Committee from completing its examination of the complaint of a violation of the Convention, defeating the purpose of the Committee’s action and rendering the expression of its Views futile. Moreover, the failure to comply with this provision, particularly by taking irreparable action such as expulsion, is an outright denial of protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention1 (art. 3). The Committee recommends that the State party should take all necessary measures to ensure that any request for interim measures addressed to it by the Committee under article 108 (1) of its rules of procedure is strictly complied with in the future. 1 CAT/C/34/D/195/2002. 27