Committee considered that allegations of a risk of torture at the hands of Sendero Luminoso, a non-state entity controlling significant portions of Peru, fell outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. In Elmi v Australia, the Committee considered that, in the exceptional circumstance of State authority that was wholly lacking, acts by groups exercising quasi-governmental authority could fall within the definition of article 1, and thus call for the application of article 3. The Committee considers that, with three years elapsing since the Elmi decision, Somalia currently possesses a State authority in the form of the Transitional National Government, which has relations with the international community in its capacity as central government, though some doubts may exist as to the reach of its territorial authority and its permanence. Accordingly, the Committee does not consider this case to fall within the exceptional situation in Elmi, and takes the view that acts of such entities as are now in Somalia commonly fall outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.” 92. A different approach was, however, adopted by the Committee in SS v Netherlands, Communication No 191/2001, 5 May 2003, para 6.4: “The Committee observes that the issue whether the State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention, unless the nongovernmental entity occupies and exercises quasi-governmental authority over the territory to which the complainant would be returned.” The Committee’s change of approach was neither acknowledged nor explained. On the contrary, the passages quoted above from Elmi v Australia, SV v Canada and MPS v Australia were cited as supporting this approach. The approach adopted by the Committee more recently in MKM v Australia, Communication No 681/2015, 10 May 2017, was seemingly more orthodox. It referred at para 8.6 to the failure of the state in question to provide protection from torture by non-state actors, and referred in para 8.7 to its General Comment No 2 (2008), discussed below, and to “the failure on the part of a state party to exercise due diligence to intervene and stop the abuses [by non-state actors] that are impermissible under the Convention, for which it may bear responsibility”. Page 46