response Remedy recommended To make reparation for the breach of article 3 of the Convention, and to determine, in consultation with the country to which he was deported, the complainant’s current whereabouts and the state of his well-being. Due date for State party response 28 February 2008 Date of reply 29 February 2008 State party response The State party regrets that it is not in a position to implement the Committee’s Views. It does not consider either a request for interim measures of protection or the Committee’s Views themselves to be legally binding and is of the view that it has fulfilled all of its international obligations. Its failure to comply with the Committee’s Views should not be interpreted as disrespect for the Committee’s work. It submits that the Government of India is better placed to advise the Committee on the complainant’s whereabouts and well-being and reminds the Committee that India is a party to the Convention as well as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, it has written to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India informing it of the Committee’s Views, in particular, its request for up-dated information on the complainant. Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the procedure of individual complaints established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 108 of the rules of procedure, which is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. (See Dar v. Norway, communication No. 249/2004, Views of 11 May 2007, para. 16.3; and Tebourski v. France, communication No. 300/2006, Views of 1 May 2007, para. 8.6) Consequently the Committee considers that, by sending the complainant back to India despite the Committee’s repeated requests for interim measures, the State party has committed a breach of its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.” 118