6.7 The Committee further notes, on the basis of the information before it, that the area of Mogadishu where the Shikal mainly reside, and where the author is likely to reside if he ever reaches Mogadishu, is under the effective control of the Hawiye clan, which has established quasi-governmental institutions and provides a number of public services.” 50. Three years later, however, in HMHI v Australia (1 May 2002; CAT/C/28/D/177/2001) the CAT distinguished Elmi on the ground 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” (at para 6.4). It considered 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.” (at para 6.4) 51. The CAT has considered the matter more recently still, in SS v The Netherlands (19 May 2003; CAT/C/30/D/191/2001). The complainant argued that he would be in danger of being tortured by the LTTE if returned to Sri Lanka. Referring to the definition of torture in article 1, the Netherlands submitted that acts by non-State entities such as the LTTE could not, for the purposes of the Convention, be considered to constitute torture (para 4.6). The CAT rejected that submission, observing 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 non-governmental entity occupies and exercises quasi-governmental authority over the territory to which the complainant would be returned.” (at para 6.4) Page 25