CAT/C/24/D/116/1998 page 6 ill-treated by the authorities prior to 6 October 1997. On the same point, the author draws attention to the fact that the problems encountered on 18 June 1997 emerge clearly from the report on the second hearing, which mentions his stay in Bas-Zaire from that date. With regard to the exact status of the person who helped him escape from the hospital, it is pointed out that the author, a novice in that respect, never really knew whether the person was a nurse or a doctor, a distinction which is even more difficult to draw in the DRC. As far as that person’s name is concerned, it is natural that the author should have had difficulty remembering it, since, for the sake of security, an accomplice will rarely reveal his name. The author mentioned one name at the beginning of the hearing, but then gave up. 5.3 With regard to the other arguments put forward by the State party, the author refers to the additional statement dated 4 June 1998, which was submitted to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters. In it, the author explains why he chose to travel to Europe by plane and how he organized his trip so that he would not be spotted. He had actually obtained a return plane ticket that belonged to a Zairian citizen residing in Italy. He also states that he no longer has any contact with his family, which means that he is unable to obtain certain documents. Lastly, with regard to his activities on behalf of the regime and his political activities, the author observes that he was asked very few questions on the subject and so did not have a chance to give all the necessary explanations in reply to the doubts of the authorities responsible for the asylum proceedings. 5.4 The author believes that the State party has not honoured its international commitments in its handling of his application for asylum, particularly in its excessive reliance on a formality (the payment of the 250 Swiss franc deposit for appeal costs four days after the deadline) to declare his appeal to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters dated 30 April 1998 inadmissible. 5.5 The author derives some satisfaction from the State party’s observations on his communication, since for the first time the merits of his reasons and arguments have been examined in depth. He regrets, however, that this examination was carried out not by the actual judicial authority normally competent in asylum matters, but by the Government, which, by virtue of the proceedings, is a party in the case and consequently does not have the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. 5.6 The author believes that, by signing the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the State party undertook not to expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. To determine the risk involved, the State party must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of systematic violations of human rights in the country concerned. The author believes that these relevant considerations have not been examined, since the Swiss authorities dealing with the matter did not at any time consider the merits of his application for asylum. 5.7 With regard to the lack of a medical certificate, the author recalls that he was examined upon his arrival in Switzerland, but, being unfamiliar with the details of the procedure, did not think of asking for an examination of the marks left by the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected.