CAT/C/57/D/611/2014 with the entire country, and because these negative experiences prevent him from asking for help from a higher authority in Kazakhstan. 3.4 The complainant states he has not submitted the same matter for examination before another procedure of international investigation or settlement. He does not expressly affirm to have exhausted domestic remedies, but states he has availed himself of the following mechanisms in the Netherlands: (a) an asylum application, which was denied on 8 May 2003; (b) an appeal against that denial, which was rejected by the Court of First Instance in Leeuwarden on 17 May 2004; 10 and (c) an application for suspension of departure on medical grounds, which was filed on 16 May 2012 then denied on 10 October 2012.11 On 1 November 2012, he filed a petition against that denial on medical grounds, which in turn was denied on 13 November 2012.12 On 10 January 2013, he filed an appeal against the latter denial, which was rejected by the Court of First Instance in Zwolle on 21 May 2013. 13 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By a note verbale dated 15 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits. It recalls the facts of the case and provides excerpts from relevant domestic legislation. The State party submits that the complainant sought asylum on 13 October 2002. In this context, he was interviewed twice: on 13 October and 15 October 2002. During the second interview, the complainant had a chance to elaborate on his initial asylum claims. On 5 December 2002, a “complimentary” interview took place. The State party submits that all interviews were conducted in Russian. 10 11 12 13 GE.16-09780 The complainant states that the Court found that the Kazakh authorities did not have a general policy of discrimination against non-Kazakhs, but that it was likely that the complainant and his family had been persecuted owing to their Russian background. The complainant’s asylum history is consistent with what is known about the country through objective sources. The Court also found that the complainant had asked a major in the police force for protection. With regard to the torture that the complainant was subjected to and the threats made to him and his family, it appeared that the complainant would not be able to ask for protection from a higher authority in Kazakhstan. The complainant states that the application for suspension of departure on medical grounds was denied on the grounds that article 64 of the Aliens Act was inapplicable, because the Bureau for Medical Advice had concluded that the complainant was fit to fly and simply needed to be accompanied by a psychiatric nurse. The Bureau also concluded that a medical emergency (within three months) would not occur if he were not treated for his medical complaints in his homeland. The complainant states he had claimed there would be a medical emergency within three months because he was chronically suicidal, which the Bureau for Medical Advice acknowledged. He also asserted that treatment in his homeland would not be considered safe because the cause of his medical symptoms lie in the traumatic experiences he had undergone there. The complainant states that the petition was denied on the grounds that, under the law, the advice of the Bureau is considered objective expert advice and must be proved to not be objective by the petitioner. In the present case, the Bureau concluded that there would be no medical emergency, and the victim did not prove otherwise by providing new or supplementary medical information. Moreover, a suicidal nature due to fear of deportation does not fall under the scope of article 64 of the Aliens Act, because it has no medical basis. The credibility of the trauma caused in the homeland is an asylum issue and should not be part of the regular procedure. The complainant states that the Court found that there were no grounds to doubt the medical investigation carried out by the Bureau for Medical Advice. The Court considered that, on the basis of the Bureau’s report, there would not be a medical emergency within three months. On the basis of this conclusion, the question of the possibility for medical treatment in the complainant’s homeland was no longer relevant. The fact that the Bureau did not invite the complainant for a medical check was not relevant because the Bureau has legal discretion to decide whether a medical check is necessary. The Immigration and Naturalization Service had the right to decide not to hear the complainant in person because the petition was evidently unfounded. 5