Mutombo v. Switzerland (No. 13/1993); Alan v. Switzerland (No. 21/1995); Aemei v. Switzerland (No. 34/1995); V.L. v. Switzerland (No. 262/2005); El Rgeig v. Switzerland (No. 280/2005); Tapia Paez v. Sweden (No. 39/1996); Kisoki v. Sweden (No. 41/1996); Tala v. Sweden (No. 43/1996); Avedes Hamayak Korban v. Sweden (No. 88/1997); Ali Falakaflaki v. Sweden (No. 89/1997); Orhan Ayas v. Sweden (No. 97/1997); Halil Haydin v. Sweden (No. 101/1997); A.S. v. Sweden (No. 149/1999); Chedli Ben Ahmed Karoui v. Sweden (No. 185/2001); Dar v. Norway5 (No. 249/2004); Tharina v. Sweden (No. 266/2003); C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden (No. 279/2005); and Jean-Patrick Iya v. Switzerland (No. 299/2006). 96. In the following cases, the Committee considered that for various reasons no further action should be taken under the follow-up procedure: Elmi v. Australia (No. 120/1998); Arana v. France (No. 63/1997); and Ltaief v. Tunisia (No. 189/2001). In one case, the Committee deplored the State party’s failure to abide by its obligations under article 3 having deported the complainant, despite the Committee’s finding that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured: Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004). 97. In the following cases, either further information is awaited from the States parties or the complainants and/or the dialogue with the State party is ongoing: Falcon Rios v. Canada (No. 133/1999); Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004); Brada v. France (No. 195/2003); Suleymane Guengueng and others v. Senegal (No. 181/2001); Ristic v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 113/1998); Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 161/2000); Agiza v. Sweden (No. 233/2003); Thabti v. Tunisia (No. 187/2001); Abdelli v. Tunisia (No. 188/2001); M’Barek v. Tunisia (No. 60/1996); Chipana v. Venezuela (No. 110/1998); Pelit v. Azerbaijan (No. 281/2005); Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada (No. 297/2006); and Tebourski v. France (No. 300/2006). 98. During the thirty-ninth and fortieth sessions, the Special Rapporteur on follow-up to decisions presented new follow-up information that had been received since the last annual report with respect to the following cases: Quani Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria (No. 8/1991); Chipana v. Venezuela (No. 110/1998); Falcon Rios v. Canada (No. 133/1999); Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004)); Suleymane Guengueng and others v. Senegal (No. 181/2001); Agiza v. Sweden (No. 233/2003); Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia (No. 269/2005); Elif Pelit v. Azerbaijan (No. 281/2005); Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada (No. 297/2006); Jean-Patrick Iya v. Switzerland (No. 299/2006); and Tebourski v. France (No. 300/2006). 99. Represented below is a comprehensive report of replies received with regard to all 45 cases in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention to date and in one case in which although the Committee did not find a violation of the Convention it did make a recommendation. 5 The State had already remedied the breach prior to consideration of the case. 107