CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that they would be victims of a violation of the Convention if they were deported to the DRC where they fear they will be subjected to torture. Ms Njamba believes that, if returned, she would be tortured and/or killed by the security services, or in revenge by the families who felt betrayed by her, her husband, and her brother-in-law. The complainants also allege that, in practice, the secret police detain and interrogate everyone returned to the country and often tortures, arbitrarily imprisons, and/or kills them. In addition, they allege that the security situation in the DRC is precarious and that the Government is thus unable to guarantee protection of their human rights. 3.2 Ms Njamba has been confirmed as HIV-positive by doctors in Sweden. 1 She claims that, given the lack or rarity of treatment in the DRC, returning her there would result in her death from AIDS. Upon return to the DRC, she would face a “painful death” from the disease and suffering due to the knowledge that her young daughter would grow up an orphan. 3.3 The complainants claim to have exhausted domestic remedies, as all of their appeals have been rejected. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 11 December 2007, the State party filed observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. Nevertheless, it maintains that the communication should be considered inadmissible in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It recalls that article 3 is only applicable if the complainant is in danger of being subjected to torture as defined in article 1. Accordingly, since any possible deterioration of Ms. Njamba’s health after deportation cannot be considered to constitute torture as defined by article 1, the State party contends that the issue of whether the execution of the expulsion order would constitute a violation of the Convention in view of Ms. Njamba having been diagnosed as HIV-positive falls outside the scope of article 3. Moreover, the State party maintains that the complainants’ claim that they will be subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. It submits that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. 2 1 An affidavit addressed to the Committee is attached from a Swedish nurse specializing in HIV treatment, who worked 11 years in the DRC as a missionary. She notes that she personally knows of several persons returned to the DRC, who were detained without process upon arrival by DRC security forces and were forced to bribe their way out of prison. She predicts that Ms Njamba’s health would deteriorate rapidly upon arrival although she does not currently require HIV medication; this prediction she ascribes to conditions in the DRC as well as Ms Njamba’s precarious conditions were she to be returned without money or contacts and having to resort to her ominous job as a sex worker She notes that, “it is a known fact that the time span between HIV virus infection to fully blown Aids is significantly shorter in Africa than in Sweden,” and that she would not receive retroviral medication in the DRC. 2 See for instance Communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 May 2003, para.6.2. 4