CAT/C/53/D/519/2012 6.5 The State party submits that, although nationals of Myanmar constitute the majority of refugees recognized by the State party’s authorities owing to the past serious human rights violations in the country, there were no credible grounds for the complainant’s claim that he would face persecution upon his return to Myanmar, and he was consequently denied refugee status. The State party believes that “such assessment made at the time of consideration of the complainant’s application for refugee status … remains valid in light of article 3 of the Convention”. The State party also maintains that the complainant has failed to substantiate that he would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture if he returned to Myanmar. 6.6 The State party submits that, in his application for refugee status, the complainant claimed that he would be subjected to judicial action upon his return to Myanmar and would be sentenced to life imprisonment for escaping from prison in 1988. The State party notes that he has failed “to present any specific experience of being subjected to torture during the two months of his imprisonment” in Myanmar. At the domestic level, the complainant has never stated that his family in Yangon had been threatened or that he had been sought by the Myanmar authorities in relation to his participation in the demonstration in 1988 or to his escape from prison. The State party’s courts also concluded that it was not likely that the complainant would be subjected to torture upon return to Myanmar, as the evidence mentioned by him, namely the summons which was issued in 2008, lacked credibility. The complainant’s further comments 7.1 On 22 January 2014, the complainant reiterates that the State party’s attempts to differentiate a forced deportation and a forced departure is malapropos and confuses the State party’s non-refoulement obligation under the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. He also reiterates that forced expulsion and forced return are prohibited under article 3 of the Convention and that UNHCR recognizes that there are problems associated with States parties expelling asylum seekers to third countries, including the risk that asylum seekers may be refused admission and may ultimately be sent, without their claims being examined, either to their country of origin or to another unsafe country. The State party’s decision to expel the complainant is therefore a violation of its non-refoulement obligation, even if the decision does not require the complainant to return directly to Myanmar. 7.2 The complainant further acknowledges that he incorrectly used the term “deportation” instead of the phrase “forced departure” in his complaint to the Committee. Nevertheless, the complainant submits that he has not abused the right of submission since, even if the correct phrase “forced departure” is used in the context of his claim, the alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention and all other contentions made in the complaint still stand. 7.3 With regard to the risk of torture, the complainant submits that he faces a personal danger of torture if he returns, or is forcibly returned, to Myanmar. The evidence in support of the alleged risk is substantial, relates directly and personally to the complainant and is consistent with the recognized pattern of persecution and torture in Myanmar. In particular, the ongoing pattern of human rights abuses against political prisoners is well documented; the complainant was detained without due process and imprisoned for two months for allegedly, though not actually, participating in a peaceful demonstration in 1988; he escaped from prison and fled Myanmar and continues to live as a fugitive “from the Myanmar police and criminal justice system”; he has been issued with several summons since 1988, the latest of which was issued in 2008; and there have been cases of Myanmar citizens who were considered to be political targets and were arrested, imprisoned and tortured upon return to Myanmar. The complainant therefore has substantial grounds for believing that, upon his return to Myanmar, he will be sought by the Myanmar authorities 6