CAT/C/48/D/364/2008 the Congo were more than mere “harassment”, because persons identified as Rwandans there risk dying a very painful death. 6.5 The complainant also once again raises the question of the State party’s doubts about his credibility. He confirms his address in Kinshasa, and refers to his knowledge of his Rwandan origins and the fact that he spent his childhood far away from Kinshasa. With regard to his detention by militiamen, he claims to have been detained in a mud hut, as the militia have no prisons. 6.6 The complainant finds that the Swiss authorities’ scepticism about his children’s statements is regrettable and criticizes their failure to make any attempt to verify their claims. He considers it not unusual for children not to remember exact dates, such as when they entered and left the centre run by ORPER. Lastly, the complainant rejects the State party’s argument that the children could receive appropriate medical treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He notes that he contracted tuberculosis during his detention, which attests to the difficulties he endured in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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 The Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), with regard to the claims contained in the original communication before the Committee. Although the State party initially contested the admissibility of the complaint on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, those remedies were subsequently exhausted and the State party has acknowledged the admissibility of the complaint. However, with regard to the complainant’s claim that he is active in APARECO, making his political activity in Switzerland common knowledge, the Committee notes that the complainant made this claim for the first time in his comments on the State party’s submission. The Committee therefore notes that the State party has not had a chance to comment on that claim, which, moreover, was not invoked before the domestic courts as a factor constituting a risk of torture for the complainant if he were returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the light of the above, the Committee finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee finds that the other claims made under article 3 of the Convention are admissible and therefore proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether, in deporting the complainant and his children to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party would be failing to fulfil its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8 GE.12-43679