CAT/C/53/D/519/2012 contrary to the “spirit of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as to the international refugee law in general”. 5.3 The complainant further submits that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)has stated that the principle of non-refoulement must be given due regard when sending asylum-seekers to third countries and it requires (a) that a State party, at least, identify a country that will accept responsibility for examining the asylum request; (b) that the country’s refugee status determination procedure is consistent with the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol; (c) that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent that country from sending an asylum-seeker/refugee to another country in violation of its non-refoulement obligations; and (d) that the asylum-seeker/refugee must be protected, as required by the 1951 Convention. 5.4 The complainant notes that, according to UNHCR, there is a grave risk that an asylum seeker’s claim may not receive a fair hearing in third countries and that a refugee may be sent on, directly or indirectly, to persecution, in violation of the principle of nonrefoulement and of article 33 of the 1951 Convention. The State party’s further observations on admissibility, as well as on merits 6.1 On 10 July 2013, the State party submitted its further observations. It reiterates that the complainant is not facing deportation to Myanmar, as an order of departure, rather than an order of deportation, was issued against him, requiring him to leave the Republic of Korea voluntarily without a designated destination country. For that reason, the State party submits that the complainant’s present claim constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. 6.2 The State party further submits that the complainant used a forged passport with a temporary C-3 visa to enter the State party on 26 October 1994 and applied for refugee status only on 13 April 2004, in other words after living illegally for 10 years in the State party. It reiterates that the complainant’s application for refugee status and his subsequent appeal were denied by the Minister of Justice and by the Seoul Administrative Court. The Administrative Court’s negative decision was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The State party notes that the order of departure issued by the Minister of Justice is still valid. 6.3 The State party notes that the grounds for rejecting the complainant’s application for refugee status recognition were the following: (a) that he has not participated in activities against the Government other than the demonstrations in which he participated in 1988 as a middle-school pupil; (b) that 20 years had passed since the 1988 democratic movement in Myanmar; (c) that he applied for refugee status 10 years after he entered the Republic of Korea; (d) that when the probability of persecution was examined in the light of his personal situation and the requirements under the Refugee Convention, it was considered to be significantly low. 6.4 The State party further maintains that, even if the complainant returns to Myanmar, he would not be at risk of being subjected to torture. It notes that, with regard to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee has stated that both the general situation of the country in question and the danger faced by the complainant must be considered in order for him/her to receive protection as provided for under the principle of nonrefoulement. The State party notes that the situation of human rights in Myanmar was considered to be serious in the past and that the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have adopted annual resolutions on the subject. However, recent developments in Myanmar have brought about a wide range of positive changes in its human rights situation, which have been duly referred to in such resolutions since the 66th United Nations General Assembly in 2011. 5