In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 19.

The Committee concludes that this claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Therefore, the Council of the State concludes, with paragraph 2 of Article 116 of the Constitution,

The Committee concludes that the author's detention was arbitrary, in violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

Therefore, the Committee concludes that this claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

It therefore concludes that the communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 17.

The Committee concludes that the author was the victim of a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

The State party concludes that the author's expulsion would be compatible with article 7 of the Covenant.

The Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 9, paragraph 2.

Consequently, the Committee concludes that such acts constitute a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The Committee, therefore, concludes that the facts submitted by the author do not raise any issue under article 26.

The State party concludes that there has been no violation of article 26 of the Covenant in the present case.

The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee concludes that this part of the claim is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

Therefore, the Committee concludes that the author is a victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.

The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is therefore inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

In the present case, it concludes that the investigating authorities failed to comply with their obligations under article 14, paragraph 2.

Consequently, the Committee concludes that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.

The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The State party concludes that there has thus been no violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant in the instant case.

It concludes that the restriction on the author's right to freedom of association was incompatible with the requirements of article 22, paragraph 2, and thus violated article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

The State party therefore concludes that the communication should be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, consequently concludes that the expulsion of the complainant to Spain did not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the author's trial did not respect the principle of presumption of innocence, in violation of article 14 (2).

Therefore, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated article 14, paragraphs 1, and 3 (g), of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Deolall.

By reference to the Committee's jurisprudence, he concludes that the expulsion order against him constitutes arbitrary interference with his rights under article 17 and 23.

The State party concludes that the author cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and that his claim under article 26 is therefore inadmissible ratione personae.

The Committee concludes that the present communication is not inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol and the State party's reservation thereto.

Accordingly, the Committee concludes

In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the State party, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c).

It concludes that this part of the communication should be found inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, since the allegation was not sufficiently substantiated.

Accordingly, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, concludes that the complainant's removal to Pakistan by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee thus concludes that in expelling the complainant in the circumstances that it did the State party breached its obligations under article 22 of the Convention.

The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant with regard to the facts submitted in the communication.

The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant with regard to the facts submitted in the communication.

The Committee thus concludes that all the necessary conditions have been met, and that article 22, paragraph 5 (b), does not prevent it from considering the communication.

The Committee therefore concludes that the author has not substantiated his claim and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The State party concludes that there is no reason for challenge proceedings, and invokes article 3 of the Optional Protocol as grounds for the inadmissibility of the communication.

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 3 (a) of the Covenant, the Committee concludes that the author is entitled to an appropriate remedy including commutation of his death sentence.

In this respect, accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

In the present case, the Committee concludes the author has failed properly to substantiate his claim under article 14, paragraph 5, and decides that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

As the author failed to avail himself of these remedies, the State party concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee concludes that the author has not substantiated the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.