CAT/C/57/D/611/2014 4.2 On 20 March 2003, the complainant was given a written notification that the Government intended to deny his asylum application, to which the complainant responded with his letter dated 17 April 2003. In a decision dated 8 May 2003, the complainant’s asylum application was rejected. On 2 June 2003, the complainant filed for a judicial review of this decision, which was heard by a district court on 11 February 2004. On 14 May 2004, that court rejected the application for review as “unfounded”. 4.3 On 7 June 2004, the complainant filed an appeal against the district court judgment with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. In a decision dated 28 September 2004, the Division declared the appeal “manifestly unfounded”.14 4.4 The State party acknowledges that it is not aware as to where the complainant resided between 2004 and 2012. On 16 May 2012, the complainant submitted a request under section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 in connection to his situation. The issue to be reviewed was whether the complainant was healthy enough to travel. The Bureau for Medical Advice was asked to submit a medical report, which it did on 4 October 2012. In a decision dated 10 October 2012, the complainant’s application under section 64 was denied. The complainant filed an objection to that decision, which was rejected as unfounded on 13 November 2012. On the same date, the complainant filed a request for a review of that decision by the district court, which rejected the appeal as unfounded on 21 May 2013. 4.5 On 16 June 2013, the complainant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, which rejected the petition on 21 August 2013 as “manifestly unfounded”. On 28 August 2013, he submitted a new asylum application, which was denied on 5 September 2013. The complainant appealed against that decision, but the District Court of the Hague rejected his appeal as unfounded. On 12 December 2013, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division also denied his appeal as manifestly unfounded. 4.6 Regarding the merits of the present communication, the State party submits that, during the asylum proceedings, the complainant had ample opportunities to elaborate on the veracity of the accounts of the facts, if unable to produce any documentary evidence. The initial asylum decisions could then be reviewed by courts, and the district court’s decision could be reviewed by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. The complainant in the present complaint was interviewed three times and was able to submit further information and clarification to his testimony. 4.7 The State party challenges the complainant’s assessment that there is a “pattern of gross and mass violations of human rights” in Kazakhstan. Although the human rights situation in Kazakhstan gives cause for concern, there is no reason to conclude that the expulsion to Kazakhstan per se would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant must therefore make a “persuasive case” for his fear of persecution, based on foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. 4.8 The complainant refers to his ethnic and religious background and that “jihadis” tried to recruit his sons, the eldest one successfully. He claims that he was approached by jihadis and they assaulted him. The complainant further claims that the authorities in Kazakhstan never accepted his formal complaints regarding these assaults and, instead of protecting him, raped him and assaulted him themselves. According to the complainant, relocating within Kazakhstan is not an option, because it is unlikely that the perpetrators of those assaults will be held accountable. The complainant also associates the whole country with this experience and, as a result, has had medical problems. 14 6 The State party submits that, under section 91, subsection 2, of the Aliens Act 2000, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division may simply find an appeal as manifestly unfounded, without further explanations. GE.16-09780