Decision
the Committee of any further developments. In January 2015, the State party’s submission was transmitted to the complainant for comments. Committee’s decision: To keep the follow-up dialogue open. Russian Federation Case Kirsanov, 478/2011 Decision adopted on 14 May 2014 Violation Article 16 Recommendation: The Committee invited the State party to take steps to provide the complainant with redress, including fair and adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. Follow-up: On 17 December 2014, the complainant submitted that his requests to the State party’s authorities to implement the Committee’s decision had been returned to him with a request to enclose a copy of the said decision. In January 2015, the complainant’s submission was transmitted to the State party for comments. Committee’s decision: To keep the follow-up dialogue open. Switzerland Case X., 470/2011 Decision adopted on 24 November 2014 Violation Article 3 Recommendation: The State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to any other country where he runs a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Follow-up: On 19 January 2015, the State party submitted that, following the Committee’s decision, the complainant was granted refugee status and a residence permit on 16 January 2015. On 20 January 2015, the counsel for the complainant confirmed that he had been granted refugee status and was not under threat of removal. Committee’s decision: To close the follow-up dialogue with a note indicating satisfactory resolution. Switzerland Case Fadel, 450/2011 Decision adopted on 14 November 2014 Violation Article 3 Recommendation: The Committee invited the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of its decision, of the steps taken in response to its observations. Follow-up: On 10 February 2015, the State party submitted that, following the Committee’s decision, the complainant was granted refugee status and a residence permit on 3 February 2015 and that he no longer risked being removed to Yemen. On 25 March 2015, the counsel for the complainant confirmed that he had received a residence permit and was no longer at risk of deportation. Committee’s decision: To close the follow-up dialogue with a note indicating satisfactory resolution. Switzerland Case Azizi, 492/2011 Decision adopted on 27 November 2014 Violation Article 3 Recommendation: The Committee urged the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of its decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed. Follow-up: On 19 January 2015, the State party submitted that, following the Committee’s decision, the complainant was granted refugee status and a residence permit on 16 January 2015 and that he no longer risked being removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. On 23 March 2015, the complainant confirmed that he had received a residence permit and was no longer under threat of removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Committee’s decision: To close the follow-up dialogue with a note indicating satisfactory resolution. Switzerland Case Tahmuresi, 489/2012 Decision adopted on 26 November 2014 Violation Article 3 Recommendation: The Committee urged the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of its decision, of the steps taken in response to the decision expressed. Follow-up: On 29 January 2015, the State party submitted that, following the Committee’s decision, the complainant was granted refugee status and a residence permit on 23 January 2015 and that he no longer risked being removed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. On 7 April 2015, the complainant confirmed that he had been granted refugee status and was no longer under threat of removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Committee’s decision: To close the follow-up dialogue with a note indicating satisfactory resolution. Switzerland Case Khademi et al., 473/2011 Decision adopted on 14 November 2014 Violation Article 3 Recommendation: The State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to any other country where they run a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Follow-up: On 29 January 2015, the State party submitted that, following the Committee’s decision, the complainants were granted temporary residence permits on 27 January 2015 and that they were no longer at risk of removal. On 6 February 2015, the counsel for the complainants confirmed that they had been granted refugee status and were no longer under threat of removal. He urged the Committee not to close the follow-up dialogue without asking the State party for compensation to cover the lawyer’s fees incurred by the complainants for legal services provided in relation to their communication before the Committee. On 24 March 2015, the State party submitted that the Convention did not contain a provision that could serve as legal basis for compensation claims to cover legal fees and invited the Committee to close the follow-up dialogue with regard to the above communication. Committee’s decision: To close the follow-up dialogue with a note indicating satisfactory resolution.