CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

GE.26-06660 (E) 030626 030626

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1112/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

A.B. (represented by counsel, Vadim Drozdov)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

17 December 2021 (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 22 December 2021 (not

issued in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

17 April 2026

Subject matter:

Deportation to Georgia

Procedural issue:

Admissibility – ratione materiae; 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 and 16

1.1

The complainant is A.B., a national of Georgia born in 1989. He applied for asylum

in the State Party, but his application was rejected. He is facing deportation to Georgia and

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

16 of the Convention due to the lack of the necessary oncological and mental health treatment

in the country of origin. 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.

1.2

On 22 December 2021, 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 Georgia while the communication was being

considered.

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-fourth session (13 April–1 May 2026).

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

Jorge Contesse, Lorena González Pinto, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing,

Liu Huawen, Maeda Naoko, Moulaye Abdallah Moulaye Abdallah, Ana Racu and

Abderrazak Rouwane.

United Nations

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

4 June 2026

Original: English

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

2

GE.26-06660

Factual background

2.1

The complainant suffers from Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic

system. While living in Georgia, the complainant and his wife depended on social assistance.

2.2

On 30 March 2019, the complainant arrived in Switzerland1 and applied for asylum

on the sole ground that he was seeking medical treatment. On 26 April 2019, the

complainant’s doctor issued a report concerning his medical condition, according to which

the complainant needed immediate treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma, failing which his

condition would rapidly result in death.2 On 3 and 22 May 2019, the State Secretariat for

Migration heard the complainant, who stated that he could not afford treatment for his

condition in Georgia. On 12 June 2019, the State Secretariat requested the Embassy of

Switzerland in Georgia, in Tbilisi, to clarify whether Hodgkin’s lymphoma could be treated

in Georgia and whether health insurance there would cover the costs of treatment and

medication. On 17 July 2019, the State Secretariat transmitted to the complainant the findings

of the Embassy. Its report mentioned that Hodgkin’s lymphoma was treated in 13 hospitals

and clinics in Tbilisi. It indicated that chemotherapy and radiotherapy costs were covered by

the universal healthcare programme and the reimbursement programme.3 In the report, the

Embassy admitted that a number of medications necessary for the complainant’s treatment

were not available in Georgia, but mentioned the possibility of importing medication.

2.3

On 22 July 2019, the complainant’s doctor issued an opinion on the Embassy’s

findings, stating that three of the necessary medications were available in Georgia, but not

the remaining chemotherapy and supporting drugs. She stated that it was unclear from the

report

whether

specialized

X-ray

tomography

(positron

emission

tomography

(PET)/computerized tomography (CT)) and radiotherapy were available in Georgia. The

complainant forwarded the opinion to the State Secretariat for Migration on 14 August 2019.

On 6 January 2021, the complainant’s doctor issued a report concerning his medical

condition. She stated that his remission status was difficult to determine and that, based on

computer tomography, it was impossible to document whether the lymphoma had been

completely cured.

2.4

On 10 February 2021, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

request for asylum, since asylum is granted only where there is persecution by the State from

which the applicant was seeking asylum. The State Secretariat considered that the

complainant’s medical condition would not prevent his expulsion. It noted from the medical

reports that his Hodgkin’s lymphoma had been successfully treated in Switzerland and that,

in the event of a recurrence, the necessary treatment would be available in Georgia.4 It did

not dispute that such treatment was available only in Tbilisi, but considered that the

treatments were within reasonable reach. To reach this conclusion, the State Secretariat

observed that, in the past, the complainant’s wife had accompanied her sick mother to Tbilisi

for medical treatment. The State Secretariat also noted that, contrary to the complainant’s

allegations, he could cover treatment expenses via the universal healthcare programme, social

assistance for persons below the poverty line and reimbursement programmes.

2.5

On 12 February 2021, the complainant’s doctor issued a report concerning his medical

condition, stating that specialized X-ray examination had shown that, even after the therapy

had been completed, the complainant continued to have metabolically active tissue. It was

not clear to what extent this tissue corresponded to lymphoma or to scar tissue, so the

complainant needed clinical and laboratory follow-up examinations every three months to

1 No further details.

2 Between May and September 2019, the complainant underwent chemotherapy, and between

November and December 2019, he underwent radiotherapy.

3 The report did not indicate any deficiencies in the implementation by the universal healthcare

programme of oncological treatment.

4 Besides the clarifications from the Embassy of Switzerland in Georgia, in Tbilisi, the State Secretariat

for Migration invoked the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court BVGer D-4247/2018 of

16 December 2019, in which the possibility of treating Hodgkin’s lymphoma was confirmed.

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

GE.26-06660

3

check his progress. The doctor stated that, should the complainant again need treatment for

the condition, chemotherapy and an autologous stem cell transplantation would be

prescribed.5

2.6

On 18 February 2021, the complainant appealed the State Secretariat’s decision,

arguing that the universal healthcare programme and other State programmes would not

cover all the costs of the treatment he needed. On 1 March 2021, the Federal Administrative

Court declared the complainant’s appeal inadmissible because it was submitted after the

deadline. On 17 March 2021, a law firm in Georgia prepared a report concerning the

complainant’s access to the necessary medical treatment in his country of origin, based on

information received from the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied

Territories, Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia and concluding, inter alia, that the

specialized treatment required by the complainant was not covered in practice.

2.7

On 14 April 2021, the complainant requested re-examination of his case, arguing that

he would have no access to the medical treatment necessary for Hodgkin’s lymphoma in

Georgia and therefore his return would lead to a life-threatening deterioration of his health.

He produced the medical report of 12 February 2021, the law firm’s report of 17 March 2021

and a statement by the director of a Tbilisi hospital of 22 March 20216 in support of his

position.

2.8

On 21 May 2021, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s

request for re-examination. It first recalled that the treatment necessary for Hodgkin’s

lymphoma was possible in Georgia and observed that, at the hearing on the Embassy’s report,

the complainant himself declared that the treatment he required was possible in Tbilisi. Then

it noted that, when the law firm had drafted its report of 17 March 2021, the Ministry of

Georgia had not commented on all the questions concerning the financing of the treatment

necessary. Therefore, the State Secretariat considered that it could not be automatically

concluded that there was no guarantee of actual access to treatment. It noted the

complainant’s declarations that he would be able to apply for social assistance, even if the

chances of it being granted were low. The complainant had also stated that the health

insurance would cover the treatment up to a certain upper limit, but that the reimbursement

of costs exceeding this amount would have to be requested. Based on this information, the

State Secretariat deemed that it could not be assumed that there was no chance that the

necessary treatment would be funded. Nor could it be assumed that the complainant would

face a life-threatening medical emergency after his return due to a lack of access to medical

care, or that he would be subjected to intensive suffering as a result of return.

2.9

On 24 June 2021, the complainant appealed the State Secretariat’s decision, invoking

a medical report of 4 June 2021, which specified that psychotherapy with drug therapy had

been started due to pronounced psychological stress caused by the rejection of his application

for asylum status. The complainant also stated that the State Secretariat’s decision was

general and did not reflect his personal circumstances, in particular the costs of medical

treatment and his inability to cover them due to his poverty.

2.10

On 20 August 2021, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal, reiterating

the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration. It noted that the universal healthcare

programme provided for a maximum amount for treatment, but observed that it was not clear

whether the complainant would need to undergo any further cancer treatment. The court

recalled that there was no entitlement to remain in Switzerland to be able to benefit from a

specific type of treatment in the event of a relapse. It then held that treatment options were

available in Georgia and that, if these should cost more than the maximum amount provided

for by the universal healthcare programme, it would be possible to apply to the Referral

Service Commission in Georgia for reimbursement of the costs. The fact that the exact

criteria for reimbursement were not known did not mean that the complainant would be

denied such reimbursement. Consequently, the court deemed it not possible to determine

5 An autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure that uses a patient’s own healthy blood stem

cells, collected and frozen beforehand, to replace bone marrow destroyed by high-dose chemotherapy

or radiation, commonly treating blood cancers like myeloma and lymphoma.

6 Who confirm that the hospital conducts an autologous stem cell transplantation procedure, which is

financed by the Government through the healthcare programmes.

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

4

GE.26-06660

whether the complainant would be eligible for reimbursement, since it was unclear which

treatment would be necessary in the event of a recurrence of the cancer or which would be

considered appropriate by the competent doctors. The court gave its conclusion that the

complainant would not face medical or existential hardship in Georgia due to the social

assistance programme, the universal healthcare programme and the possibility to turn to the

Referral Service Commission. It lastly noted that, at the beginning of his illness, the

complainant was able to have initial tests carried out in Georgia, being thus able to access the

medical care system despite his alleged precarious economic situation.

2.11

In October 2021, the complainant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for acute

suicidal tendencies. On 22 November 2021, the complainant’s doctor confirmed ongoing

examinations relating to his medical condition. On 7 December 2021, five police officers

attempted to deport the complainant and his wife. They came to the returnees’ centre where

they resided, but the complainant was at the hospital following surgery. The complainant and

his wife were ordered to leave Switzerland by 25 December 2021. On 8 December 2021, the

complainant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for suicidal tendencies caused by the

attempted forced expulsion and fear of not receiving the necessary medical treatment in

Georgia. On 9 December 2021, the psychiatric hospital issued a report on the complainant’s

state of mental health. He was diagnosed with panic disorder and a moderate episode of

recurrent depressive disorder. He was prescribed therapy and medication.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant submits that his removal to Georgia would lead to a serious risk to

his health and life due to the lack of the necessary oncological and mental health treatment

in his country of origin. His expulsion to Georgia without sufficient and individual guarantees

would violate his rights under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention.7

3.2

The complainant notes that, since he has not been completely cured, he requires

regular clinical and laboratory follow-up examinations, specialized X-ray examinations and

potentially biopsy to speedily diagnose any possible recurrence of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In

case of recurrence, he would urgently need treatment with chemotherapy and an autologous

stem cell transplantation. To treat his mental health, he needs therapy and medication. In case

of acute suicidal tendencies, hospitalization would be required. In that context, he fears a lack

of access to the necessary treatment in Georgia.

3.3

The complainant contests the assessment made by the Swiss authorities of the facts

and evidence in his case. In particular, the authorities should perform an individualized

assessment of the risk of irreparable harm that the complainant would face if removed,

including relating to access to adequate medical care. 8 The Swiss authorities failed to

examine the accessibility of oncological treatment for the complainant in Georgia in the light

of his lack of resources and deficiencies in the implementation of the universal healthcare

programme. Despite a lack of knowledge about the risk of cancer relapse, the State Party

attempted to forcefully remove him.

3.4

The complainant considers that the Swiss authorities must seek proper assurances

from the Georgian authorities under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. They should ensure

that he would have access to adequate oncological and psychotherapeutic treatment,

including that the costs of the medical procedures, therapy, medications and transportation

necessary would be covered in Georgia, given his poverty.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 22 June 2022, the State Party submitted its observations. It points to the fact that

the complainant does not claim to be at risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of articles 1,

3 and 16 of the Convention. His only reason for requesting asylum was to secure medical

7 Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), para. 9.9.

8 Ibid., paras. 9.7–9.11. See also Human Rights Committee, Ali et al. v. Denmark

(CCPR/C/116/D/2409/2014), para. 7.8; Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, N.L. v.

Sweden (CRPD/C/23/D/60/2019), para. 7.8; and European Court for Human Rights, Grand Chamber,

Paposhvili v. Belgium, application No. 41738/10, Judgment, 13 December 2016, paras. 190–196.

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

GE.26-06660

5

treatment in Switzerland. None of the elements mentioned in the definition of torture in

article 1 of the Convention – which are relevant for the interpretation and applicability not

only of article 3, but also of article 16 of the Convention – are therefore present. In particular,

the public authorities have in no way been involved in inflicting pain or suffering. For the

State Party, the communication is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention. The

State Party also notes that the complainant was not subjected to treatment prohibited by

articles 1 and 16 of the Convention in Georgia. On the contrary, he was able to have his

condition diagnosed in Georgia before travelling to Switzerland. At no point during the

proceedings did he allege that he had attempted to obtain medical treatment for his condition

in Georgia and/or that he had been refused the necessary treatment there.

4.2

On the merits, the State Party recalls that the complainant’s treatment for Hodgkin’s

lymphoma was completed at the end of 2019 and that the Swiss authorities have examined

the availability of diagnostics and treatment in Georgia, in case of recurrence, and found that

they are generally available in Georgia, as are State-funded health programmes for people

living in poverty. Therefore, there is every indication that medical care will be sufficient to

prevent the complainant’s health from being seriously threatened if he returns. In any event,

there is currently no evidence to suggest that the complainant requires any further treatment

other than regular check-ups.

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

merits

5.1

On 25 February 2024, the complainant submitted comments. He informs the

Committee that, according to a doctor’s update of 18 March 2022, he needs medical checks

every three months to monitor remission and detect relapse. The doctor also indicated the

need for a biopsy and chemotherapy should Hodgkin’s lymphoma recur and explained that

without those, the complainant would die.

5.2

The complainant points out that he had already been aware that he was sick while in

Georgia. However, he could not access the necessary medical treatment due to his poverty

and deficiencies in the State-funded programmes, as argued before the Swiss authorities. He

contends that he runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk to his life and health upon

deportation to Georgia because of the absence of the necessary oncological and mental health

treatment in Georgia. He refers to the existence of serious doubts as to the availability and

accessibility of the adequate healthcare services and considers that the Swiss authorities

failed to dispel these doubts and conduct an individualized assessment of his risk, relying

instead on general assumptions regarding the availability and accessibility of medical

treatment in Georgia.

5.3

The complainant clarifies that his complaint is not about the differences in the level

of medical care he receives in Switzerland and could receive in Georgia. On the contrary, the

main issue is whether he would be able to obtain in Georgia the kind of medical care that is

necessary to treat his oncological and mental health conditions in order to prevent serious

risk to his health and life. The complainant thus invokes a lack of healthcare services

necessary to address the serious risk to his health and life, the failure of State-funded

programmes or social assistance to cover the necessary treatment expenses, the inability to

receive reimbursement from the State and the lack of individual assurances from the

Government of Georgia regarding the necessary treatment. He also considers that the Swiss

authorities have not examined his practical access to oncological treatment considering his

poverty. Moreover, the complainant’s forced return to Georgia would trigger suicidal

tendencies that would endanger his life.

5.4

Lastly, the complainant informs the Committee that, on 16 March 2022, his wife was

deported to Georgia. At the expiry of the entry ban imposed by the Swiss authorities, she

returned and applied for asylum on 26 December 2023. The complainant thus argues that, by

separating him from his wife for one year and nine months, the State Party has subjected him

to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention.9

9 A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016), para. 8.10.

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

6

GE.26-06660

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

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.

6.2

In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall 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.

6.3

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the communication is

inadmissible ratione materiae because none of the elements mentioned in the definition of

torture in article 1 of the Convention – which are relevant for the interpretation and

applicability of articles 3 and 16 – are present. The Committee notes that the complainant

alleges that his deportation to Georgia would constitute a serious risk to his health and life

due to the lack of the necessary oncological and mental health treatment in his country of

origin. The Committee considers that, in the case of expulsion of seriously ill persons, the

Convention’s guarantees in article 3 still apply. 10 The Committee emphasizes that the

Convention prohibits refoulement only where there are substantial grounds for believing the

person would face a real risk of torture or ill-treatment in the receiving State. Accordingly,

the Committee finds the complainant’s allegations admissible ratione materiae.

6.4

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

complaint is to avoid being deported to Georgia 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 claim under article 16 of the

Convention is not autonomous, but rather forms part of his allegations regarding his personal

situation in support of his claim under article 3.11 It is also of the view that the complainant

has not demonstrated that the facts that he has presented raise separate issues under article 16

of the Convention.

6.5

In any event, the Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the Swiss authorities

have examined the availability of diagnostics and treatment in Georgia, in case of recurrence

of the complainant’s condition. It observes that the State Party’s immigration and judicial

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

found, following a specific request for information to the Embassy of Switzerland in Georgia,

in Tbilisi, that Hodgkin’s lymphoma can be diagnosed in Georgia and that State-funded

health programmes are available for persons living in poverty to cover the costs of treatment.

6.6

The Committee also notes that the complainant contests that the State Party performed

an individualized assessment of his risk, relying instead on general assumptions regarding

the availability and accessibility of medical treatment in Georgia. However, the Committee

observes that the asylum authorities examined the possibility of access to treatment in

Georgia, and it considers that the complainant has not established that the domestic

10 The European Court of Human Rights has considered that article 3 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights)

applies in cases where the person facing expulsion is close to death or seriously ill, where substantial

grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, although not at imminent risk of dying, would

face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack

of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her

state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy: see

Paposhvili v. Belgium, paras. 181 and 183.

11 A.N. v. Switzerland, para. 8.3.

CAT/C/84/D/1112/2021

GE.26-06660

7

evaluation of the facts and evidence concerning access to the necessary medical treatment of

Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Georgia was deficient.

6.7

The Committee 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.12

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.13

7.

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.

12 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.

13 S.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/73/D/968/2019), para. 12.6.