CAT/C/53/D/519/2012 flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of torture upon his/her return to that country; (b) that in the past, he had been arrested and detained without due process and was subjected to inhuman treatment while in prison; (c) that he had escaped from prison, which is a criminal offence in Myanmar; (d) that, up to 2008, summons had been issued against him; (e) that other persons in a similar situation have been arrested and tortured upon return to Myanmar. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 15 November 2012, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility. It maintains that the communication represents an abuse of the right of submission within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The State party submits that the complainant received an order of departure on 9 October 2009 after his appeal for refugee status had been denied. Thereafter, the complainant filed an administrative appeal requesting revocation of the denial of refugee status and stayed in the Republic of Korea while the examination of his appeal was pending. Deferral of his departure was denied on 22 July 2011. The State party notes that the complainant has been staying in the Republic of Korea illegally since July 2011 and that the order of departure against him is still valid. However, an order of deportation has never been issued against him. The State party explains that an order of departure under article 68 of the Immigration Control Act is issued instead of an order of deportation when a person expresses his will to voluntarily depart the country at his own cost and s/he is expected only to leave the territory of the Republic of Korea. Under the Immigration Control Act a person who receives a deportation order will be repatriated to the country in which s/he has nationality or citizenship. The State party further notes that, even in that case, the person may be deported to “another country to which he desires to be sent”. In addition, in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement, s/he would not be deported to a country where s/he would be at risk of torture. 4.2 The State party submits that, given that an order of deportation has not been issued in respect of the complainant, the present complaint, alleging that the Republic of Korea is in violation of article 3 of the Convention only because the State party’s authorities have denied his application for refugee status, constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication and that the complaint is therefore inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 20 February 2013, the complainant points out that the State party has conceded in its observations that an order of departure has been issued against him. He notes that the State party’s argument that the order of departure issued does not require the complainant to return to Myanmar, but rather requires him to depart, presumably, to a third country, fails to fully address the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. 5.2 In particular, the complainant notes that, in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture, it is stated in broad terms that “no State party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. However, the State party’s argument is that article 3, paragraph 1, prohibits a State party from returning an asylum seeker, but does not prohibit it from expelling him or her. The complainant submits that such an interpretation of article 3 of the Convention is clearly inconsistent with the purpose and is 4