Due date for State party response None Date of reply 21 September 2005 State party response Pursuant to the Committee’s request of 7 June 2005 on follow-up measures taken, the State party informed the Committee that the complainant will be permitted to return to French territory if he so wishes and provided with a special residence permit under article L.523-3 of the Code on the entry and stay of foreigners. This is made possible by a judgement of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, of 18 November 2003, which quashed the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Limoges, of 8 November 2001. This latter decision had confirmed Algeria as the country to which the complainant should be returned. In addition, the State party informs the Committee that it is in the process of contacting the Algerian authorities through diplomatic channels to find out the whereabouts and state of well-being of the complainant. Complainant’s response None Case Tebourski, 300/2006 Nationality and country of removal if applicable Tunisian to Tunisia Views adopted on 1 May 2007 Issues and violations found Removal - articles 3 and 22 Interim measures granted and State party response Granted but not acceded to by the State party.10 10 The Committee also notes that the Convention (art. 18) vests it with competence to establish its own rules of procedure, which become inseparable from the Convention to the extent that they do not contradict it. In this case, rule 108 of the rules of procedure is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention, which otherwise would only offer asylum-seekers invoking a serious risk of torture a purely relative, if not theoretical, form of protection. The Committee therefore considers that, by expelling the complainant to Tunisia under the conditions in which that was done and for the reasons adduced, thereby presenting the 123