CAT/C/34/D/220/2002 Page 8 4.13 Regarding article 16, the State party refers to the Committee’s decisions in the cases of G. R. B. v. Sweden4 and S.V. et al. v. Canada5, noting that the Committee did not find violations of article 16 in either case. Although it acknowledges that according to the medical evidence the complainant is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and his health has deteriorated, as a result of the decisions of the Swedish authorities to refuse him a residence permit, it considers that there is no basis for his fear of returning to Bangladesh. His family can support him on return and medical care is available for him, at least in the big cities. The State party notes that despite his health problems the complainant has attended school and has also worked in Sweden for considerable periods of time. In enforcing the expulsion order, the State party ensures that his health will be taken into account in deciding how the deportation will be carried out and the Bangladeshi authorities will not be informed of his return. In its view, the complainant has not substantiated his claim that an enforcement per se of the expulsion decision would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention. 4.14 On a procedural issue, the State party requests the Committee to extend its examination to the merits of the communication, as soon as possible, since the Committee’s decision in this case may be of relevance to the Swedish immigration authorities’ assessment of other asylum claims from Bangladeshi citizens. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission: 5.1 On 23 October and 22 November 2003, the complainant commented on the State party’s submission and provided an update on the facts. It is stated that for fear that the complainant might commit suicide he was placed in a psychiatric clinic on 23 October 2003. He was discharged at the end of November 2003 and referred to noninstitutional care. He claims that there is a direct link between his depressive state and his fear of being sent back to Bangladesh. He maintains that he has fully substantiated his claim and states that the overall purpose of article 16 is to protect an individual’s health and welfare. 5.2 As to the information in the confidential report6, he claims that such reports are made in close cooperation with domestic authorities and the information is almost always provided by officials who depend on the benevolence of the political powers. He claims that Bangladeshis are looked upon with suspicion by the Swedish authorities and that the burden of proof is higher than that of any other asylum seekers. On the issue of the alleged forged affidavit confirming the complainant’s conviction for murder, it is argued that no objective evidence, other than a report from an investigator, was provided to prove that the complainant is not one of the convicted persons. This report does not contain any signature or name of the person purported to have signed it. Neither does it provide information on the competence of the investigator, who is merely referred to in the letter as its “lawyer”. Finally, no information has been provided on whether the complainant’s lawyer was given an opportunity to comment or refute the accusation of forgery which was directed against him and if so what his response was. 4 Case No. 86/1997, Decision adopted on 15 May 1998. Case No. 49/1996, Decision adopted on 15 May 2001. 6 This report has not been provided but the State party submits that it will provide it at the Committee’s request. 5