CAT/C/37/D/280/2005 page 4 deal with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and political refugees in Switzerland. The complainant was released on an unspecified date, and on 27 September 2006, the Administrative Tribunal decided to strike his appeal from the list of cases, since it was no longer necessary.1 The complaint 3. According to the complainant, the Federal Office for Refugees acknowledged that he had been imprisoned for six years without trial but considered that he had not succeeded in proving that he had been persecuted between 1995 and 2003, whereas it had been impossible to adduce the evidence to that effect. The Swiss authorities had apparently not examined the recent reports published by various international observers concerning cases of detention and torture in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The complainant maintains that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if he were returned to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and that, consequently, his expulsion to that country would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 27 October 2005, the State party declared that it did not contest the admissibility of the complaint, and on 16 March 2006, it submitted its observations on the merits. With regard to the effectiveness of the appeal to the Administrative Tribunal of Geneva Canton, the State party observes that the sole subject of that procedure was the lawfulness of the administrative detention, and that it did not affect the binding nature of the decision of the Federal Office for Migration ordering the complainant’s expulsion. The State party concludes that the appeal to the Administrative Tribunal can therefore not be deemed effective, and recalls that it has not contested the admissibility of the complaint. 4.2 The State party emphasizes that the complainant does not adduce any relevant new evidence that would enable him to challenge the decision of the Asylum Review Board. It notes that, following a thorough examination of the complainant’s allegations, the Board, like the Federal Office for Migration, was not convinced that the complainant ran a serious risk of being persecuted if he was returned to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. 4.3 Having recalled the Committee’s jurisprudence and its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, the State party endorses the grounds cited by the Asylum Review Board substantiating its decisions to reject the complainant’s application for asylum and to uphold his expulsion. It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence whereby the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular individual is likely to be subjected to torture on return to his or her country, and that additional grounds must therefore exist before the likelihood of torture can be deemed to be, for the purposes of article 3, paragraph 1, “foreseeable, real and personal”. 4.4 The State party maintains that, since the complainant was released on 2 March 1995, there is no temporal link between the complainant’s detention and his flight in 2003; this was allegedly confirmed by the complainant during his registration hearing on 13 June 2003. At the hearing, the complainant confirmed that he had not had any problem with the authorities after his release and had left the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya because he had been unable to find work there.