CAT/C/56/D/545/2013 tortured and harassed him several times in order to keep him away from the opposition, out of fear that he would use inside information about NSS operations, intelligence-gathering methods and undercover agents against the Armenian authorities. He maintains that he has seen NSS agents subject innocent people to ill-treatment, and that NSS does not serve the Government and its people, but rather the oligarchs who hold power in Armenia. He also submits that, if he returns to Armenia, his punishment will include the ill-treatment of his family members. 3.2 The complainant maintains that the decision of the Federal Administrative Court was procedurally flawed because the deciding judge, who has repeatedly expressed negative opinions about asylum seekers and foreigners in general, was biased. The complainant also asserts that the Court failed to consider information from reliable sources, such as the organization Human Rights in Armenia, indicating that NSS and police officials in Armenia routinely torture and murder individuals and are part of a totalitarian and unlawful regime. 3.3 The complainant also argues that the State party’s authorities should have considered the adverse effects that removal to Armenia would have on his children’s mental health, development and future. State party’s observations on admissibility 4. In its observations dated 14 March 2014, the State party states that it considers the communication inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, because the complainant moved from Switzerland to Germany on 15 February 2014. Unsuccessful asylum applicants in Switzerland receive emergency aid under article 12 of the Federal Constitution. Such emergency aid replaces the social aid that was available before 1 January 2008. Article 12 of the Constitution provides that anyone in a situation of distress and without means of subsistence has the right to receive aid to cover basic subsistence needs in a manner consistent with the requirements of human dignity. The fundamental right to basic living conditions under article 12 does not guarantee a minimum income, but does ensure that basic survival needs, including food, housing, clothing and basic medical care, are met. The State party considers that the complainant could have requested such aid and remained in the country, but did not do so and instead took a voluntary and autonomous decision to leave Switzerland. As such, he cannot be removed to Armenia by the State party, and article 3 of the Convention does not apply. Accordingly, the communication is moot. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 19 June 2014, the complainant asserts that his move to Germany does not render the communication inadmissible. He maintains that: (a) his residency in Germany is connected to his wife’s employment there, and he may therefore have to leave when her contract expires; (b) he is not eligible to seek international protection in Germany because the State party bears responsibility for his asylum claim under European regulations; (c) the Swiss authorities forced him to leave his apartment and threatened to send him back to a centre for asylum seekers; and (d) his children are not adapting to life in Germany. 5.2 On 2 February 2015, the complainant informed the Committee that he had moved back to Switzerland from Germany. He stated that, because his daughters had experienced difficulty in adapting to life in Germany, his wife had sought and found employment as a doctor in a medical clinic in Switzerland. 5