A/74/44 58. The Committee also found three communications, Nakawunde v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/615/2014), A.B. v. Germany (CAT/C/64/D/727/2016) and J.O. v. Georgia (CAT/C/64/D/730/2016), inadmissible, and discontinued the consideration of X. v. Ukraine (CAT/C/64/D/451/2011), P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/656/2015), A.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/689/2015), M.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/64/D/694/2015), V.K. and S.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/724/2016), M.A.A. v. Denmark (CAT/C/64/D/733/2016), A.E.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/64/D/803/2017) and N.A.A. et al. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/814/2017). 59. At its sixty-fifth session, on 30 November 2018, the Committee held an exchange of views with the European Court of Human Rights, represented by Judge Ganna Yudkivska, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, represented by Judge Rafâa Ben Achour (via videoconference) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, represented by Carlos E. Gaio (via videoconference). At that meeting, which was generously supported by the International Institute of Human Rights, participants discussed universal civil jurisdiction and the right to a remedy for acts of torture and ill-treatment, particularly the respective jurisprudence. During the session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of nine communications. In Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), the Committee concluded that the return of the complainant to Italy by the State party would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In Yrusta and Yrusta v. Argentina (CAT/C/65/D/778/2016), the Committee found that the victim had been subjected to torture, in violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, and articles 11 to 14 of the Convention. In M.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/811/2017 and Corr.1), the Committee concluded that the return of the complainant to Eritrea by the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention. The Committee 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 S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/65/D/691/2015), S.H. v. Australia (CAT/C/65/D/761/2016), X. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/765/2016), E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017) and A.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/841/2017). 60. The Committee also found two communications, T.T.P. v. Australia (CAT/C/65/D/756/2016) and F.K.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/65/D/784/2016), inadmissible and discontinued the consideration of B.M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/584/2014), A.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/65/D/679/2015), K.B. v. Canada (CAT/C/65/D/739/2016), M.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/65/D/796/2017) and A.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/65/D/859/2018). 61. At its sixty-sixth session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of nine communications. In I.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/66/D/729/2016), Erdoğan v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/D/827/2017), Onder v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/D/845/2017) and Ayden v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/D/846/2017), 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 the three cases against Morocco, the Committee found that the State party had an obligation to assess the risk of torture and ill-treatment when considering extradition requests. The Committee found that the forcible return or extradition of the complainants would not constitute a violation by the States parties of article 3 of the Convention in its decisions on M.J.S. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/66/D/757/2016), J.M. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/66/D/768/2016), J.I. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/66/D/771/2016), X and Y v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/776/2016) and C.F.T. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/829/2017). 62. The Committee also found two communications, A v. Australia (CAT/C/66/D/749/2016) and B v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/820/2017), inadmissible, and discontinued the consideration of M.Z. v. Australia (CAT/C/66/D/624/2014), C.R.R. v. Denmark (CAT/C/66/D/735/2016), K and K v. Netherlands (CAT/C/66/D/760/2016), R v. Australia (CAT/C/66/D/766/2016), L.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/66/D/772/2016); R.D. et al. v. Canada (CAT/C/66/D/777/2016), K.T. v. Australia (CAT/C/66/D/788/2016), M.B. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/797/2017) and T v. Sweden (CAT/C/66/D/825/2017). 13