CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

GE.25-20460 (E) 120126 130126

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1155/2022*, **

Communication submitted by:

K.K. (represented by counsel, Roman Schuler)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

24 October 2022 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State Party on 26 October 2022 (not issued

in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

14 November 2025

Subject matter:

Deportation to Sri Lanka

Procedural issue:

Level of substantiation of claims

Substantive issue:

Risk to life or risk of torture or other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

if deported to country of origin

(non-refoulement)

Articles of the Convention:

3, 14 and 16

1.1

The complainant is K.K., a national of Sri Lanka born in 1998. He applied for asylum

in Switzerland, but his application was rejected. He is facing deportation to Sri Lanka and

submits that his deportation would constitute a violation by the State Party of article 3 of the

Convention. The State Party made the declaration provided for in article 22 (1) of the

Convention on 2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel, Roman Schuler.

1.2

On 26 October 2022, pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State

Party not to deport the complainant to Sri Lanka while the communication was being

considered.

1.3

On 1 November 2022, the State Party informed the Committee that, in accordance

with its established procedure, the State Secretariat for Migration had requested the

competent authority to refrain from taking any steps to deport the complainant, so that he

could be assured of remaining in Switzerland pending the consideration of his complaint by

the Committee.

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-third session (10–28 November 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Todd

Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen, Maeda

Naoko, Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov.

United Nations

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

13 January 2026

Original: English

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

2

GE.25-20460

Factual background

2.1

The complainant is of Tamil ethnicity. On 4 July 2016, the complainant obtained a

job in another village, which required him to travel on foot and by bus. On his way from his

house to the bus stop, he had to pass through three Sri Lankan army checkpoints. Soon the

soldiers asked him to do favours for them, namely, collecting packages – a request he

accepted out of fear of reprisals. Suspecting that he was transporting illegal substances, on

9 January 2017, the complainant refused to continue doing the favours. On 10 January 2017,

on his way to work, two army personnel stopped the complainant to ask him why he had not

collected the package, then took him to a military camp where they severely beat him,

threatened him with death and forced him to perform oral sex on one of them while the other

filmed the scene. Thereafter, he was sexually assaulted on several occasions 1 by army

personnel at all three checkpoints.

2.2

On 23 June 2017, the complainant was returning home, accompanied by his sister and

a fellow villager, when they were stopped by soldiers to be checked. The sister was taken

inside the guard post and shortly afterwards started to scream. The complainant rushed inside

and saw a soldier holding his sister, whose clothes had been ripped off. The complainant then

pushed the soldier and ran home with his sister and the villager. The next morning, on 24 June

2017, four soldiers came to the complainant’s home and took him to a checkpoint, allegedly

for having attacked soldiers the day before. At the checkpoint, he was beaten and then

questioned by the commander. When he told the commander about the sexual assaults by the

soldiers,2 the complainant was kicked and ordered to sign in daily when passing through the

checkpoint. The villager who had accompanied the complainant the previous day was also

required to sign in. The following day, the villager did not comply with this obligation, so

the complainant was questioned about him. On that occasion, the complainant heard a

conversation between two soldiers, who said that the villager was suspected of being a

member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Thereafter, the complainant did

not return home but went to stay with his sister in another village.

2.3

On 26 June 2017, soldiers came to the complainant’s house because he had not

complied with the requirement to sign in that morning. The soldiers learned where his sister

was living, and went there and found him. They dragged him out of the house3 and left him

alone only when neighbours came to help him. However, he was again ordered to sign in at

the checkpoint. Fearing for his life, in view of the supposed connection between him and the

villager, who was allegedly involved with LTTE, the complainant did not go home. The

following day, his mother informed him by telephone that the soldiers had come again to

look for him, and the complainant’s father therefore took him to Colombo and made

preparations for his escape. Shortly thereafter, the complainant left Sri Lanka with the help

of a smuggler and, on 17 October 2017, he arrived in Switzerland, having travelled via Spain,4

and applied for asylum the same day. Even after he had left the country, soldiers regularly

came to the complainant’s home and his parents’ home, looking for him and harassing his

family members.5

2.4

The State Secretariat for Migration interviewed the complainant on 23 January 2018

and 16 August 2018. On 23 August 2018, the State Secretariat rejected the complainant’s

asylum application and ordered his return, as it found the complainant’s claims to be

inconsistent. On one occasion, he declared that his superior had lent him a motorcycle to

travel to work, while, on another occasion, he declared that he had travelled to work in the

back seat of villagers’ cars. In addition, the complainant was unable to explain why he would

have travelled to work on foot and by bus at all after the first assault by the soldiers. His

explanation that his father had been unable to take him to work in his tuk-tuk for cost reasons

seemed illogical and did not correspond to general experience. It could not be inferred from

1 About 14 times, according to the State Party’s observations of 19 April 2023.

2 It is unclear whether these allegations of sexual assaults referred to those to which the complainant

was subjected or his sister.

3 The complainant produces four photographs allegedly showing him and allegedly taken during the

event.

4 No further details are provided.

5 No further details are provided.

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

GE.25-20460

3

the complainant’s statements that he had at least tried to avoid walking to the bus stop. Due

to the complainant’s contradictory and illogical statements about his journey to work, the

State Secretariat considered the allegations of sexual coercion and threats by the soldiers, as

he had described them, to be implausible.

2.5

The State Secretariat also noted that, on one occasion, the complainant alleged that he,

his sister and a villager had been stopped at the first checkpoint, while on another occasion,

he declared that this had happened at the third checkpoint. Because of this clear contradiction,

the State Secretariat did not accept the allegation that soldiers had sexually assaulted his sister.

In this respect, it noted that the complainant had made a sketch of the various checkpoints

during his initial interview and therefore assumed that he was well aware which was meant

by “first checkpoint” and “third checkpoint”. Lastly, according to the State Secretariat, at the

second hearing, on the grounds for asylum, the complainant stated that he had first learned

about the villager’s connections to LTTE when he heard soldiers talking about the matter,

without his being questioned, whereas, during his first interview, the complainant declared

that he had already been intensively questioned about the villager’s suspected connections to

LTTE and any possible links that he had with the villager when he had first signed in at the

checkpoint. For the State Secretariat, this apparent contradiction showed to be unfounded the

claim of his being arrested for suspected links with LTTE.

2.6

The complainant lodged an appeal, in which he contested the State Secretariat’s

assessment of his statements and evidence. He claimed that he was clearly recognizable in a

photo taken during the incident of 26 June 2017. He produced medical reports dated 4 June

2021, attesting to intermittent testicular pain, and 20 October 2021, attesting to a moderate

depressive episode and post-traumatic stress disorder.6 He also alleged that, on 14 November

2021, three members of the Sri Lankan military had appeared at his parents’ house and told

them that the complainant had to report to the military camp within one month or his younger

brother would be arrested and taken away. As evidence, he submitted a video secretly

recorded by his brother.7 His family then went to live with relatives in another village, where

they have been hiding ever since.

2.7

On 24 August 2022, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s

appeal for lack of credibility. In addition to the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration,

the Court noted that the complainant had described neither the two soldiers who had allegedly

abused him the first time nor any interactions between them. In particular, he did not give

any information about where exactly he was supposed to have been beaten or where the

forced oral sex was supposed to have taken place afterwards. With respect to the medical

report of 20 October 2021, the Court reiterated that the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress

disorder did not in itself constitute proof of the alleged ill-treatment and noted the lack of

further evaluation of his medical situation.

2.8

The Court disagreed with the State Secretariat’s assessment that the complainant had

contradicted himself with regard to the checkpoint where his sister had allegedly been abused.

However, while accepting that the complainant’s statements about being taken away by

soldiers on 24 June 2017 showed a certain degree of consistency, the Court found other

statements by the complainant, given during the first and second asylum hearings, to be

implausible because of significant contradictions between them. At the first hearing, he

declared that, on 24 June 2017, he had first been beaten by soldiers, then interrogated by the

commander, while, at the second hearing, he mentioned being beaten only during

interrogation; at the second hearing, he declared that, later on the same day, namely, 24 June

2017, he had been beaten with sticks by two soldiers, although he did not mention this at the

first hearing; at the first hearing, he declared that he had been required to sign in on 24 June

2017, while, at the second hearing he mentioned that he had been required to sign in only the

following day; and at the first hearing, he declared that the soldiers had asked him about his

connections with the villager and had told him that the latter had been involved with LTTE,

6 Copies are on file.

7 The video is on file. According to the complainant, the video shows his father surrounded by three

members of the Sri Lankan military, who tell his father that the complainant must report to the camp.

The complainant admits that the video is of poor quality and that his father can hardly be recognized in

the darkness.

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

4

GE.25-20460

while, at the second hearing, he mentioned that he had learned of the villager’s past

involvement with LTTE only when he had heard soldiers talking about it, and he explicitly

declared that he had not been questioned that day.

2.9

In view of the implausible statements made by the complainant regarding the duty to

report allegedly imposed on him, the Court held that his account of the incident on 26 June

2017 at his sister’s home had no basis, and deemed his statements in this regard to be

superficial. The Court found it surprising that the complainant had not mentioned being

beaten, slapped, kicked and tied up by soldiers during the initial questioning and that he had

repeatedly spoken of his neighbour, who had allegedly taken the photographs submitted, and

of his home during the hearing. It was also not comprehensible, nor was it explained by the

complainant, why he had made no effort to obtain the photographs of the alleged incident of

26 June 2017 until the initial interview – three months after filing his asylum application –

and why he had only been able to submit them two months after the initial interview. The

Court therefore concluded that the submitted photographs (also in a lightened version) in

which the complainant is not identifiable at all or – contrary to his opinion expressed at the

appeal level and taking into account the submitted photograph of him and his work colleagues

– at least not identifiable beyond doubt, had hardly any evidentiary value.

2.10

The Court found that the completely unsubstantiated statements about the alleged

searches for the complainant by members of the army after his departure further confirmed

the implausibility of his account of his experiences prior to his departure. As to the video

allegedly recorded on 14 November 2021, the Court considered it unlikely that members of

the army would still be looking for the complainant four years after he had left the country.

In the absence of a translation of the conversations in the video, it was not clear what the

soldiers had told the complainant’s father. The Court therefore concluded that the

complainant had failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution in Sri Lanka.

2.11

As to the medical evidence attesting to pain in the genital area, the Court stated that

even if the pain could be attributed to external violent impact, the medical documents did not

have probative value regarding the statements that the complainant had presented in an

implausible manner. The Court therefore deemed that the allegations of sexual assaults,

ill-treatment and threats by Sri Lankan soldiers were not credible for lack of substantiation

and contradictions. It stated that no strong risk factor was present in the complainant’s case,

as none of his activities in Switzerland had brought him to the attention of the Sri Lankan

authorities. It also found that the complainant’s health problems did not prevent him from

being deported because the medical reports did not show any pain in the genital area requiring

immediate treatment and his post-traumatic stress disorder could also be treated in Sri Lanka.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant claims that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation

of his rights under article 3 of the Convention.

3.2

The complainant disagrees with the finding of lack of credibility and substantiation

by the State Secretariat for Migration and by the Federal Administrative Court. According to

him, this conclusion does not reflect the evidence that he produced and is inconsistent with

the detailed and substantive account that he provided over the course of three interviews. For

the complainant, it is impossible that he could have given such a detailed account if the events

were not based on actual experiences. Contrary to the view of the Swiss authorities, the

complainant declares that his statements contain a high degree of consistency and very

specific details, which is a strong indicator of the veracity of his submissions. Minor

discrepancies, which, contrary to the opinion of the Swiss authorities, do not relate to key

points of his allegations of sexual assaults and threats, are not sufficient to cast doubt on his

detailed and credible submissions as a whole.

3.3

The complainant submits that the Swiss authorities failed to recognize that the

photographs showing the incidents of the evening of 26 June 2017 confirm his allegations.

In those photographs, the naked individual surrounded by soldiers in uniform can clearly be

identified as the complainant because his face, including the area of his eyes and his

prominent long nose, is visible – and therefore they have evidentiary value. That this

individual is the complainant becomes evident when comparing the photographs with the

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

GE.25-20460

5

picture of the complainant with his work colleagues. For the complainant, the photographs

and the video recorded on 14 November 2021 support his allegations and constitute clear

evidence, which should have been taken into account by the Swiss authorities. The

complainant also contests the assessment of the medical reports.

3.4

The complainant refers to different sources to invoke the human rights situation in his

country, which affects in particular persons of Tamil ethnicity and those presumed to support,

or to have supported in the past, LTTE. Even though the complainant himself has never been

involved with LTTE, he was suspected of such connections because of his association with

the villager.

3.5

Lastly, the complainant submits a report by the Swiss Refugee Council concerning

access to rehabilitative treatment for victims of torture in Sri Lanka.8 According to the

complainant, this report shows that there is no sufficient and satisfactory rehabilitative

treatment for victims of torture in Sri Lanka, that victims run the risk of being reported to the

authorities and that medical professionals are reluctant to treat victims of torture because they

are afraid that they themselves will become a target for State repression. The report therefore

supports the claim that returning the complainant to Sri Lanka would violate articles 3, 14

and 16 of the Convention.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 19 April 2023, the State Party submitted its observations. It considers that the

complainant’s claims under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention are not autonomous, but

form part of his allegations in support of his claim under article 3. It submits that the

complainant has not demonstrated that the facts that he has presented raise separate issues

under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention, and hence that the allegations of violations of

articles 14 and 16 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible.9

4.2

On the merits, the State Party reiterates the arguments made by the Swiss asylum

authorities. It acknowledges that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is worrying in many

respects 10 but points out that the Federal Administrative Court has already thoroughly

examined that situation and the risk of torture in the event of return in a reference judgment,11

according to which not all returnees with a real or supposed, present or past link to LTTE

necessarily risk persecution. Only persons accused of rekindling ethnic conflict face such a

risk. The same applies to Sri Lankan nationals who have engaged in political activities in

exile. In the present case, the complainant has failed to plausibly argue that he had attracted

the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. In particular, he has not invoked personal activities

for LTTE.

4.3

The State Party points to the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the

complainant’s declarations, as revealed by the domestic authorities. It considers that, while

the complainant disputes the assessment of credibility by the Federal Administrative Court

and by the State Secretariat for Migration, he fails to put forward any evidence that the

Federal Administrative Court did not – at least implicitly – take into account in its

decision-making process.

4.4

The State Party notes that the medical report dated 4 June 2021 mentions the

complainant’s epididymitis and prescribes antibiotics and painkillers for treatment. The same

report mentions that, according to the complainant, the pain had begun four years previously

after a kick and had reappeared after a volleyball match two days before. Neither this medical

report nor the one of 15 November 2017 supports the allegation of mistreatment and abuse

by soldiers. Orchitis and epididymitis can have various causes – inflammation is often caused

by a viral or bacterial infection that enters the testicular tissue via the blood, lymph or vas

deferens. Such bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics and the symptoms can be

relieved with analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication. Kicks are highly unlikely to cause

8 Swiss Refugee Council, “Sri Lanka : accès aux traitements de réhabilitation pour les victimes de la

torture”, 1 September 2020.

9 R.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/75/D/951/2019), para. 6.5.

10 See CAT/C/LKA/CO/5.

11 Federal Administrative Court, judgment E-1866/2015, 15 July 2016.

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

6

GE.25-20460

inflammation of the testicles lasting several years. The State Party also notes that a medical

report of 8 November 2017 states that the complainant had been suffering from a painful

testicular condition for a year and a half and had been receiving medical treatment for that

reason. The complainant has therefore been suffering from these pains since mid-2016, while

the alleged sexual abuse took place after this date – approximately eight months later – and

cannot therefore be the cause of them.

4.5

With regard to the trauma, moderate depressive episode and suspected post-traumatic

stress disorder invoked by the complainant, the State Party notes that the complainant

submitted a single medical report concerning an initial medical interview in October 2021.

Although that report explicitly stated that the suspected diagnosis of post-traumatic stress

disorder would be subject to further assessment, the complainant did not submit any

additional medical reports. Contrary to the impression given by the communication, it does

not appear from the file that the complainant was seen by a psychologist either before or after

the October 2021 interview.

4.6

As to the video allegedly recorded during the incident of 14 November 2021, the State

Party indicates that it is of poor quality. It is unclear – in the absence of comparative material

– whether a person appearing in the video in an orange T-shirt is in fact the complainant’s

father. The translation does not specify when the video was recorded. Furthermore, it

corresponds only loosely to the complainant’s statements. It is also surprising that, according

to the translation, the video contains instructions given by soldiers in Tamil, whereas the

complainant stated that the instructions were given solely in Sinhala. In view of the above, it

must be assumed that the video is not authentic or was not produced in the circumstances

described by the complainant.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the

merits

5.1

On 15 September 2023, the complainant submitted comments in which he contested

the State Party’s arguments. In response to the State Party’s plea of inadmissibility in relation

to the claims under articles 14 and 16, the complainant submits that he has presented

sufficient evidence to show that his forced return to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation

of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention.

5.2

As regards the inconsistencies found by the Swiss authorities, the complainant insists

that his allegations are credible, rich in details and supported by several independent sources.

He confirms that, while he had not been personally involved in political activities, his

association with the villager who is a former LTTE member constitutes an additional risk in

case of return. As to the medical evidence, the complainant submits that both medical reports

confirmed that the scars in the testicle area are compatible with post-traumatic scarring. As

for the medical report of 15 November 2017, the complainant explains that he gave an

account of his medical history in English, not in his native language, and therefore the

significance of temporal inconsistencies regarding the onset of pain in the genital area should

not be overestimated. He admits that he cannot dispute the State Party’s argument that he did

not seek further psychological assistance, but considers that this does not automatically show

that he is not in need of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. He invokes a lack of

financial resources.

5.3

The complainant submits a photograph of his father to prove that this is the person in

the video recorded during the incident of 14 November 2021. The complainant also clarifies

that one soldier gave instructions to his father in Sinhala, while another translated them into

Tamil so that his father would understand them.

Additional submission by the State Party

6.1

On 6 November 2023, the State Party provided further observations. As to the claim

that the complainant lacked financial resources to undergo treatment for his post-traumatic

stress disorder, the State Party explains that asylum-seekers whose applications have been

rejected and who are receiving emergency assistance are automatically insured for medical

care until they leave Switzerland and therefore have access to all medical services provided

for in the Federal Act on Health Insurance. It is not clear and the complainant does not

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

GE.25-20460

7

demonstrate why he should have paid the costs of any psychological treatment necessary

during the period in which he was receiving assistance.

6.2

With regard to the video submitted by the complainant, the State Party maintains its

position that the video is not authentic. Furthermore, the photograph allegedly of the father

submitted with the complainant’s comments does not prove that the person in the video is

indeed the complainant’s father.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must

decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has

ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same

matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

7.2

In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee may not

consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual

has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case,

the State Party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic

remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the

communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.

7.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s plea of inadmissibility for the alleged

violations of articles 14 and 16 of the Convention on the ground that the complainant has not

demonstrated that the facts presented raise separate issues under those articles. The

complainant responds that he has produced sufficient evidence to show that his forced return

to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention.

7.4

The Committee observes that the goal of the complainant in submitting the present

complaint is to avoid being deported to Sri Lanka and that, to this end, he claims that the

State Party would be in breach of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if

deportation took place. The Committee considers that the complainant’s claims under

articles 14 and 16 of the Convention are not autonomous claims but rather form part of his

allegations regarding his personal situation in support of his claim under article 3.12 It is also

of the view that the complainant has not demonstrated that the facts that he has presented

raise separate issues under articles 14 and 16 and proceeds to consider the allegations under

article 3 of the Convention.13

7.5

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the evidence produced has

already been examined by the domestic authorities. The Committee recalls that it is for the

courts of the States Parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts

and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such

facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.14

The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the

State Party concerned; 15 however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that the

Committee will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with

article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each

case.16

7.6

In the present case, the Committee observes that the State Party’s immigration and

judicial authorities thoroughly examined the facts and evidence presented by the complainant

12 Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), para. 8.3.

13 R.K. v. Switzerland, para. 6.5.

14 G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12; S.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/73/D/968/2019),

para. 12.5; and Z.S. v. Georgia (CAT/C/70/D/915/2019), para. 7.4.

15 For example, T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 7.7; and Alp v. Denmark

(CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3.

16 For example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.4. See also general comment No. 4

(2017), para. 50.

CAT/C/83/D/1155/2022

8

GE.25-20460

and considered that some aspects of his account were not credible, that he did not have a

political profile of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and that the state of his health – in

particular his post-traumatic stress disorder and his pain in the testicles – did not preclude his

removal to Sri Lanka, where he would have access to adequate medical care. On this basis,

the authorities concluded that the complainant had not established the existence of substantial

grounds to show that he would face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being

tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

7.7

The Committee also notes that the complainant contests the State Party’s assessment

of his credibility and of the evidence and medical reports that he produced. However, the

Committee observes that the complainant provided no evidence to substantiate his assertions

and that the authorities of the State Party found, after a thorough assessment of all the facts

and evidence presented at different levels of jurisdiction, that the complainant had not

provided sufficient evidence that he ran a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being

tortured if returned to Sri Lanka or that he would not have access to appropriate health care.

Therefore, the Committee finds that the complainant has not established that the domestic

evaluation of the facts and evidence concerning his alleged risk of treatment contrary to the

Convention upon return to Sri Lanka suffered from any defects.17

7.8

The Committee recalls its earlier decisions in which it found claims to be manifestly

unfounded where the author of a communication had failed to submit substantiated arguments

showing that the danger of being subjected to torture was foreseeable, personal, present and

real. The Committee also recalls that, for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the

Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must not be manifestly unfounded.18

In the light of the above, and in the absence of any further relevant information, the

Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claims sufficiently

for the purpose of admissibility.19

8.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the

State Party.

17 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.5.

18 See, inter alia, Z v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 6.3; and K.A. et al. v. Sweden

(CAT/C/39/D/308/2006), para. 7.2.

19 S.K. v. Australia, para. 12.6.